Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

YARMOUTH (ISLE OF WIGHT) PIER BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Pricing Policy

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will take further action to ensure that energy prices do not place industry in an uncompetitive position.

Mr. Michael Morris: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will take further measures to ensure that United Kingdom industry is on a par with EEC and United States industry in terms of prices for primary energy, including oil, gas, electricity and coal.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Howell): The Government are determined that United Kingdom energy prices should be as competitive as possible and, within the limits of economic energy pricing, will continue with all efforts to see that achieved. But our energy prices cannot be based on other countries' energy

supply costs, nor can they be varied with movements in exchange rates and they must reflect market conditions in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Hardy: The Secretary of State's answer suggests that there has been some movement over the last eight or nine months, but does he fully understand the nature of this self-inflicted wound which is causing enormous disadvantages to a number of industries or sections of industry which are otherwise highly competitive internationally?

Mr. Howell: I acknowledge the difficulties in an era of high energy costs, but the hon. Gentleman overlooks the concessions that have been made. The present concession on gas pricing is valuable to customers taking firm and interruptible gas supplies alike. Large continental increases in gas supplies are imminent and there is a prospect of British Gas holding its contract renewal prices at levels where the disparities with the Continent will close. That will help industry. Other measures are being taken with electricity and that assistance should not be underestimated.

Mr. Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the actions he has taken are greatly welcomed by British industry? Bearing in mind the fact that that took time to achieve, can he reassure British industry that in future there will be some proper means of monitoring and that we shall have action or a statement from his Department to ensure that we become more competitive in this vital area of energy costs?

Mr. Howell: We watch the disparities and comparisons closely. There are obvious disadvantages in taking snapshots each month when fluctuations in exchange rates can alter comparisons. I give an assurance that we shall continue to explore with the electricity supply industry every possible avenue available for curbing costs, although long-term comparison with the French industry is difficult because of its nuclear advantage. We shall continue to watch all aspects closely.

Mr. Tom Ellis: The Minister says that we cannot compare our energy costs with the costs of energy production in other countries. What multiple of costs of production of North Sea oil is represented in the price?

Mr. Howell: I am not sure that I follow the hon. Gentleman's question in detail. It would be wrong for us not to sell our precious North Sea oil resources at their full market worth. Our internal United Kingdom prices are determined by competition. Competition is the best servant of the customer. The present evidence that there are tight refining margins on oil products brings home the fact that competition is working.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: In view of the Secretary of State's answers, although not to the last question, what is the point of the second NEDO report that apparently is being undertaken on comparative prices?

Mr. Howell: There is not a second report. The right hon. Gentleman is not correct. It is proposed that there should be an authoritive update of the January situation in the autumn when we can take stock of the effect of the Budget concessions, the changes in the exchange rates and other international developments which may alter the situation considerably.

Mr. Skeet: My right hon. Friend must be aware that the price of North Sea oil is too high. Although BNOC has reduced the price by $2 a barrel, from $39·25, should not the price have come down by twice that amount to give advantages to industry?

Mr. Howell: The price of North Sea crudes is a matter for the oil companies and BNOC. They make their commercial judgments upon it. They have said that they intend to open negotiations for term contracts for the third quarter at a level $2 down on the previous quarter. That is their commercial judgment, and they must be left to work it out and carry it through.

Petroleum Licences (Assignments of Rights)

2. Dr. Edmund Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will take steps to ensure that all rights granted by a landward petroleum licence cannot be assigned, in any way, to parties other than the licensee.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Hamish Gray): All landward petroleum licences contain provisions which prohibit the licensee from assigning his licence rights without my prior consent. I do not propose to make any changes to these arrangements.

Dr. Marshall: Is the Minister of State aware that at present licence rights are passed on, and that in addition third companies come in and start exploring with the consent of a licensee, so that in some cases it is possible for a land occupier to be pestered by several different companies in quick succession? Would not it be more systematic and orderly if it were possible to make the licences completely exclusive, so that if the licensee wished to give up a licence he had to return it to the Secretary of State?

Mr. Gray: I think that the hon. Gentleman refers to a specific case in his constituency, about which we have had correspondence. My Department, having been notified in advance of the wish of one company to extend its survey into the area of the licence held by the other company and of the latter's agreement to the proposal, was satisfied that the proposal made technical sense, in that it was likely to lead to improved evaluation of the geological structure of the general area. But if the hon. Gentleman has any further points that he would like to discuss with me in regard to that case, I shall be happy to meet him.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Will it be possible to discuss this matter when the Government ask the House to approve forcing the British Gas Corporation to give up its gasoil licence in Dorset?

Mr. Gray: I do not think that that question has a direct relationship to the question that I have just answered. There is no doubt that a suitable opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to make his point will arise.

Gas-gathering System

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is satisfied with the rate of progress in establishing the gas-gathering system.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on the development of the gas-gathering pipeline project.

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects negotiations on finance for the gas-gathering pipeline to be complete.

Mr. Gray: Good progress is being made with technical work, both offshore and onshore. The project remains on schedule for completion in 1985. As regards the separate question of financing, the organising group is now in further contact with companies that might wish to participate in the project, with a view to seeking commitments in principle from those companies within the next few weeks.

Mr. Douglas: Will not the Minister be a bit more straight with the House and say that there is considerable delay in the project, which has now slipped from 1984 to 1985? He should state clearly the exact nature of the financing of the project. The Government are holding it up lest it appear as an element in the public sector borrowing requirement.

Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting what has already been said in the House. There is no question of the project's being held up. Everything on the physical side of the gas-gathering project is proceeding well. I have tried to explain as clearly as I can that consultations are taking place—this week, as matter of fact—between the organising group and important companies that may wish to participate in the project. The completion date that was given initially, of October 1984-spring 1985, is still achievable, and the Government have every hope that the project will proceed in the very near future.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the Minister state categorically that the banks are willing to take part in financing the project? Will he give an assurance that this vital project will not be jeopardised by the Government's dogmatic assertion that, whatever the finance, it shall not be a burden on the public sector borrowing requirement?

Mr. Gray: I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that banks normally prefer to see the whole financial package in place before they commit themselves. If he has ever found a bank that will lend money on anything without belt and braces security, he has found something that I have not. Nevertheless, we have had co-operation from the banks. The discussions are taking place, and we are confident that success will be achieved.

Mr. Rost: May we have an assurance that the project, and particularly the sale of the gas, will not be dominated by BNOC and British Gas, but that it will offer a genuine opportunity for competition with those monopolies?

Mr. Gray: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. BNOC and British Gas have been appointed by the Government as wholesalers. There is no reason why negotiations between producers and purchasers cannot continue as long as they go through the wholesale channel. We believe that this will increase the speed of the project.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Although I accept the Minister's assertion that the technical arrangements are making progress, does he not realise that with every month that passes his statements about Government hopes of achieving the deadline are becoming less and less convincing, particularly in view of the difficulties over financing? Is he not now in danger of losing the initiative over the whole project? When does he hope the financing arrangements will be completed?

Mr. Gray: A project of this magnitude must take time to negotiate. We cannot expect companies to invest the substantial amount of money that will be necessary without their ensuring that the return is available to them at the end. We are confident that this will be achieved, but I cannot immediately give the hon. Gentleman a date. I can say "as soon as possible".

Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that accusations are being made that on the Government's side expedition of decision-making is not the name of the game. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) wrote to the Secretary of State inquiring about this matter. I quote a section of the letter that the Minister's right hon. Friend—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot quote in asking a question from the Opposition Benches; quotations may be made only in answers from the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Eadie: I do not propose to quote from the Opposition, Mr. Speaker. I propose to quote what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. The hon. Gentleman cannot do that—unless he does it in such a way that we do not realise that he is quoting the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Eadie: It was reported that the right hon. Gentleman said that the private sector had not yet been given the chance to demonstrate its position. In that case, why on earth has the Prime Minister intervened?

Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman is not clear about the facts. The private sector is only too anxious to take part in the venture, but, unlike some Government bodies in the days when the hon. Gentleman's party was in office, it is determined that anything that it invests money in will be profitable at the end of the day.

Mr. Eggar: Is not the key matter that the gas-gathering pipeline shall proceed, whatever the difficulties with the financing? Is not one way out of the present difficulty that the Government take the same approach as was used for the guarantee given to ICL, when we were told that that guarantee did not form part of the PSBR?

Mr. Gray: The question of guarantees and so on has been raised from time to time, but these are still matters of discussion between the companies concerned and the organising group.

Mr. John H. Osborn: The Norwegian Parliament is this week considering a proposal from Statoil and others for another gas-gathering pipeline. Is the offer still open to the Norwegians? What is the Norwegian impact on the situation?

Mr. Gray: The British Gas Corporation has made clear to the Norwegians that the part of its offer which related to our acceptance of gas from the Norwegian section of Statfjord in the early years is still available. In other words, if the Norwegians prefer to accept the European offer, which they have received, but our pipeline, as we expect, is completed before theirs, we are prepared to take gas from them for a limited period. That offer remains open.

Electricity Supply Industry

Mr. Cadbury: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is satisfied that, in the long term, the United Kingdom electricity supply industry as presently structured will be able to produce electricity at costs comparable with those elsewhere in Europe.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Norman Lamont): Our ability to produce electricity at costs comparable with those elsewhere in Europe will depend crucially on the trend in coal prices and our performance in constructing power stations to time and to cost. Future electricity prices in this country are less likely to be affected by the electricity supply industry's structure than by these factors.

Mr. Cadbury: Will my hon. Friend not agree that because of the monopoly position of the Central Electricity Generating Board it is difficult to measure its efficiency? Will he also not agree that if it was possible to decentralise and to reorganise the CEGB on a regional basis, the resulting smaller units would be more manageable? Would it not also be possible to make cost comparisons between one region and another, thereby introducing some competition?

Mr. Lamont: I agree with my hon. Friend' s first comment about the difficulty of measuring efficiency. That is why the Government have stated that they intend, when a suitable legislative opportunity arises, to remove the monopoly on electricity supply. With regard to my hon. Friend's comments on the structure, the whole thrust of pressure has been for greater centralisation. The Government have rejected this pressure precisely for the reasons stated by my hon. Friend. We believe that there should be yardsticks of comparison among different parts of the industry. We have asked the Electricity Council to implement some new arrangements. We shall want to see, in the first instance, how those work. This will be followed by a review. I shall also bear in mind my hon. Friend's comments.

Mr. Palmer: Does the Minister agree that the French electricity supply industry, which is nationalised, and also has a monopoly has the great advantage of not being subject all the time to Government interference and can borrow money on the market competitively without the limitation imposed by the cash policy of this Government?

Mr. Lamont: I do not think it is possible to draw lessons from abroad in the manner attempted by the hon. Gentleman. The German electricity industry is organised much more on the lines mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Cadbury). There are many different types of utility in different parts of the country. Private generation also plays a part.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: Bearing in mind the great potential importance to long-term electricity supplies of the proposal for a Severn barrage, will the Department produce as quickly as possible the report of the Bondi committee? Are there also grounds for hope that the Government will be prepared to express a warm welcome for it?

Mr. Lamont: We shall be producing the report very soon.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Given the sponsorship by the Department of Energy of the CEGB, does the Minister agree with the severe criticisms made of the CEGB by the Minister for Consumer Affairs?

Mr. Lamont: My right hon. Friend is well able to answer for herself. My right hon. Friend was referring to criticisms of the CEGB made in the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The Government will be issuing their comments on that report in due time.

Gas (Household Supplies)

Mr. Dover: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will take steps to permit British Gas to provide gas supplies to householders whose homes are situated more than 25 yards from existing mains.

Mr. Norman Lamont: The question of supplying gas to premises beyond the statutory obligation to supply is a matter for the British Gas Corporation.

Mr. Dover: Does the Minister not agree that the decision could be left at his discretion to the British Gas Corporation itself? Does he see any point in advertising gas supplies when these are not available to new consumers or to housing estates built by private developers?

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend has written to me about the matter. He will know that this restraint on the obligation to supply has existed since the Gasworks Clauses Act 1871. Obviously, the Gas Corporation, in deciding whether it is economic to supply gas to an individual consumer, has to take into account the cost if the distance involved exceeds 25 yards. If the obligation to supply were totally unlimited, considerable costs would be involved for other consumers. I shall look again at the letter sent by my hon. Friend. It is difficult, however, to see how his constituent can be helped.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman not accept that, in view of the enormous profits made from gas in general, although not from domestic gas, it is time to look again at this provision? Will he say how many tens of thousands of houses equipped with gas fittings are out of contact with gas mains? Has he studied the appalling case I brought to his attention in Chadsmoor, Cannock, where houses have been modernised by the council but the gas board has refused, unless a large sum of money is paid, to make a minor connection to the houses?

Mr. Lamont: I shall be writing to the hon. Gentleman about the case he has raised. On the first point, I accept that we can look at these things. However, other people, including industrial consumers, ask constantly for relief from the pressure of gas prices. Some industrial consumers are desperately short of gas. This has been a major concern among hon. Members.

Coal Industry (Financing)

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will arrange to meet representatives of the National Coal Board to discuss the level of financing of the coal industry.

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss future investment in the coal industry.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Moore): I and my colleagues meet the chairman and other members of the National Coal Board frequently to discuss aspects of the board's affairs. My Department is at present undertaking a review of many aspects of the board's finances, including its investment plans.

Mr. Canavan: Now that the Government have given the financial go-ahead for a pilot scheme in Wales for the extraction of oil from coal, will the Minister discuss with the NCB the feasibility of a full-scale coal liquefaction plant at Grangemouth in central Scotland using the abundant coal reserves at the nearby Hirst seam? In order to ensure that Scottish interests are adequately represented at board level, is it not time that the Government considered appointing a representative from the Scottish coalfield to full membership of the NCB?

Mr. Moore: We are coming to a question about Point of Ayr shortly. I would draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the substantial investment in the Scottish area, part of the overall investment in the coal industry, amounting to £40·4 million last year. I would also draw his attention to the presence among members of the National Coal Board of the industrial relations director, Mr. Jimmy Cowan, the ex-director of the Scottish area.

Mr. Dormand: Will the Minister confirm that, so far as the Government are concerned, investment will remain at the level agreed under the 1974 "Plan for Coal"? Will he not agree that help with the cost of substituting British coal for foreign coal and the cost of stocking is not only important but a reasonable request by both the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers? What pressure is the hon. Gentleman putting on his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make additional money and grants available for the conversion of industrial boilers from oil to coal?

Mr. Moore: I have a choice of riches. The Government are committed to the concept of the "Plan for Coal", although many things have changed since 1974. The Government are committed equally to seeking to assist the board in its aim that the CEGB and BSC imports should be reduced to the irreducible minimum. The financial commitments have been made clear and will be met by the Government.

Mr. Hannam: Will the Minister confirm that exports of our coal to Europe are increasing considerably and will


continue to do so provided that we can produce coal at competitive prices? Does this not mean that the industry has to agree a programme of closures of uneconomic pits?

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is right. The National Coal Board is to be congratulated on the substantial increase to 4 million tonnes of exports last year. It is already looking to more than 8 million tonnes in 1981–82. Most of these exports, amounting to over 7 million tonnes, are expected to go to the EEC market. The competitive nature of our coal industry is the key to its retaining and increasing the export market.

Mr. Eadie: Will the hon. Gentleman look again at the answer he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) regarding Scottish representation on the National Coal Board? The industrial relations director is not a member of the National Coal Board. A clear undertaking was given. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will therefore remedy a situation that is causing some anxiety in Scotland

Mr. Moore: I should be only too happy to consider any points that may be raised. The overall organisation of the industry is a detailed matter, but I should be happy to consider any such representations and to look at the matter again.

Mr. John H. Osborn: Although I welcome the increase in exports, is my hon. Friend aware that continental buyers are still finding cheaper coal from other sources? Is there any hope of making a substantial reduction in costs, so that British coal can be competitive in the next two decades and the industry can meet its original output targets?

Mr. Moore: As we have often said, coal's expanding future is, to a degree, a reflection of its ability to penetrate the potential export market and the new market in the industrial usage of coal. Therefore, it is crucial that the industry should keep its costs competitive if its sales are to increase.

Fast Reactor Capacity

Mr. Skeet: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the anticipated fast reactor capacity in the United Kingdom; how this compares with that of France; and what future developments are proposed.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Commercial application of fast reactor technology in the United Kingdom remains a longer-term prospect. But it would be premature to speculate about the possible timing of construction of such reactors in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Skeet: Will my hon. Friend do what he can to accelerate the development of the fast reactor in the United Kingdom? Will he bear in mind that it is the only reactor that can consume plutonium, of which we have large supplies? Is he further aware that the fast reactor makes the most economic use of uranium?

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is quite right. The fast reactor has great advantages and eventually it will be needed. International collaboration is one of the key policy options. We are maintaining contact with other countries that are involved in fast reactor development. Obviously, we shall pursue those discussions as a matter of urgency.

Mr. Hooley: Has the Minister noticed that the new French Government are having second thoughts about

their nuclear power programme? Does not the hon. gentleman agree that the fast reactor will only come about—if ever—way into the twenty-first century?

Mr. Lamont: It is not yet clear what the French Government's policy on nuclear power will be. It is still intended that the super Phoenix fast reactor should go ahead and it is thought that it will be completed by about the end of 1983.

Coal Liquefaction Plant (Point of Ayr Colliery)

Sir Anthony Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for energy when he expects to make a statement about Government participation in the proposed coal liquefaction pilot plant at Point of Ayr colliery.

Mr. John Moore: I was pleased to announce Government support for this project in response to my hon. Friend's motion for the Adjournment on 22 May 1981.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government's decision to participate in the project has given rise to enormous satisfaction in North Wales, where there had been some doubts? Is my hon. Friend further aware that Government support implies that this is a commercial proposition that should attract private finance? What is being done to persuade the EEC to contribute more generously to the project?

Mr. Moore: I am delighted that the Government's announcement of support should receive such a welcome. I hope that the Government's decision will open the way for the NCB—which will be leading on the proposals—to accept the offer of support from the EEC's alternative energy demonstration programmes.

Mr. Barry Jones: Is the Minister aware that many unemployed construction workers are impatient to begin work? In what year does the Minister expect the construction phase of the scheme to begin? Is there any prospect of more money, in additon to the £5 million that the Government have put in?

Mr. Moore: People tend to assume that money will be forthcoming as soon as a project is proposed. Before the project has been assessed, they are asking for more. The success of the project will depend on the degree to which it involves the participation of both the private and public sectors. To that extent, the project's future is clearly in the hands of the NCB. Future dates are a matter for discussion with the NCB and it is impossible to give them at this stage.

Mr. Eadie: We welcome the Government's announcement to invest £5 million in oil from coal plants, although that is £15 million less than I committed when I was a member of the Labour Government. Having seen the correspondence in the build-up to the announcement, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to explain why the Department of Energy's chief scientist should regard it as his function to make political judgments on projects and thus to amend the tradition that his predecessors in the Department of Energy established, who gave scientific judgments?

Mr. Moore: During the Adjournment debate I took the trouble to make clear the important nature of this long-term decision. The Department of Energy's excellent chief scientist was carrying out his function when he gave the Department—as he consistently does—the advice that a chief scientist is expected to give. The Government hope that the decision—which has been welcomed by the chairman of the NCB, by all sections of management and by the unions involved—will have the support of all sides of the House, which will be needed if it is to be successful.

Coal Industry (Production Trends)

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what have been the recent trends of production in the coal mining industry.

Mr. John Moore: Figures on coal production are published monthly in my Department's statistical bulletin Energy Trends, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. Total United Kingdom deep-mined coal production in 1980–81 is estimated to have increased by 0·9 per cent. compared with 1979–80 and opencast production by 17·2 per cent.

Mr. Wainwright: Has the hon. Gentleman taken into account the extremely good output that was secured in May this year? Has he sent any congratulations to the mine workers and to the NCB on their achievements? Will the Government guarantee that the extra coal being produced will find a market? The Minister's right hon. and hon. Friends often talk about cheap coal on the Continent. Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that that coal is often secretly subsidised and that that represents unfair competition? Will the Government watch that aspect?

Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that at the recent Isle of Man conference organised by the British Association of Colliery Management, I congratulated the industry—as I consistently seek to do—on its increased and improved productivity, which we all welcome. Given the last Administration's actions I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will realise that no Government can overturn the laws of supply and demand. This Government are no more powerful than the Labour Government in that respect.

Mr. Lyell: Will not productivity in the coal industry be greatly improved as miners are persuaded to move from the old pits, with their low rates of productivity, to the new pits, which have much better working conditions? How are such matters proceeding?

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend has identified a classic feature of a long-term extractive industry. The development of the coal industry involves not only investment in new capacity but the gradual closure of old uneconomic capacity. My hon. Friend will be aware that since new redundancy terms were laid before the House on 11 March there has been consistent progress in turning the old coal industry into a new industry of the future.

Mr. Allen McKay: Does the Minister recall the tripartite agreement on colliery closures and coal imports? When will finance be available for the postponement of the colliery closure programme? What reduction has been made in the number of coal imports? Will the hon. Gentleman note that the three months' strike by American coal miners will result in high wage increases?

Mr. Moore: I shall not pick up the hon. Gentleman's last comment. After recent votes, it has been announced that the American strike has been terminated. As regards my right hon. Friend's two promises, considerable progress is being made. On 11 March Sir Derek Ezra suggested that the approximate cost of the Government's commitments would be between £100 and £200 million. I have nothing to add to the details of the matter. However, there will be a further tripartite meeting on 16 June when discussions will continue.

Mr. Adley: Do not the figures show clearly that the improving trend in productivity dates from the Government's first Budget, when direct taxation was reduced? In his discussions with the mining industry, will my hon. Friend take every opportunity to point that out and to seek support for the Government's taxation policy?

Mr. Moore: Much as I would wish to accept all and absolute responsibility for all successes, I cannot. My hon. Friend has made an important point. The successful remuneration package reflects the Government's taxation policies. However, the long-term investment that has been made in the industry for some years is also part of the story.

British Gas Corporation (Customer Outlets)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will now take steps to reform the customer outlets of the British Gas Corporation, in the light of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's 1980 report.

Mr. Norman Lamont: The Government are considering how best to deal with the problems which the report highlighted, including the options suggested by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. No decisions have yet been taken.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does not my hon. Friend agree, however, that the inescapable conclusion to be drawn—indeed, the only conclusion which could be drawn—from the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is that to disembarrass the British Gas Corporation of its retailing activities would be vastly in the public interest? In the light of that, will my hon. Friend please not be put off by the huffing and puffing of that dedicated monopolist, Sir Denis Rooke?

Mr. Lamont: I note what my hon. Friend says, just as I have noted what he has written about this issue in the Sunday Telegraph. Obviously at this stage, when we are consulting all those involved and when no decision has yet been taken, it would be wrong for me to say anything beyond "I note what my hon. Friend has said."

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the Minister aware that the Opposition note that the Government have just reappointed that dedicated monopolist at the British Gas Corporation? May we be assured that the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission will be debated fully in this House before a decision is taken, and may we inquire which Secretary of State will come to the House to be questioned and to listen to the views of the House?

Mr. Lamont: Debating time in this House obviously is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I am sure that he will note what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's second question, it is, of course, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade who will make any announcement in the House.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Is my hon. Friend aware that the British Gas Corporation must have spent a fairly substantial sum of money on propaganda against the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, including the extraordinary claim that if the report were accepted the choice of consumers would be curtailed? Does my hon. Friend agree with that astonishing claim, or does he think that the exact opposite would be the effect? Does he think that this propaganda by the corporation is a proper use of nationalised industry funds?

Mr. Lamont: Advertising is obviously a matter for the management of the BGC, but I share my hon. Friend's concern, and in fact I have written to Sir Denis Rooke about the advertising campaign and its cost. I am sure that Sir Denis will note my hon. Friend's comments. Certainly I shall draw them to his attention.

Nuclear Power Programme

Mr. Hannam: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he now expects to respond to the report by the Select Committee on Energy on the United Kingdom's nuclear power programme.

Mr. David Howell: The Government's response to the Select Committee's report will be published before the Summer Recess.

Mr. Hannam: I am grateful for that reply. Is my right hon. Friend aware of recent reports that the cost of a PWR in this country could be 50 per cent. higher than an identical PWR nuclear power station in the United States? Does not this confirm the views of the Select Committee that an urgent reorganisation of the electricity supply industry is required?

Mr. Howell: Undoubtedly it confirms the basic point that I have always sought to make about the nuclear programme, which is that its success depends upon building nuclear power stations to cost and on time. If that can be done, the cheaper nuclear electricity which must be part of our future electricity generation pattern is within our grasp. But it is essential that the organisation of the industry and the relations between the supplier and the customer are so arranged that we get these stations built on time and are able to improve on the very unhappy track record of the past.

Mr. Hooley: Is the Secretary of State aware that I have read that report with some care and that it blows sky-high every assumption on which his 10-year nuclear power programme is based?

Mr. Howell: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's assessment. The Government will in due course be putting forward their views in response to that very thorough report, and no doubt it will be debated, although that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Mr. Rost: Will the Government's response address itself to the main critism of the Select Committee, namely, why the British PWR should cost so much more than those being built abroad when it is a proven design of which 15 similar reactors are already operating elsewhere?

Mr. Howell: That aspect will form part of the Government's response and their consideration of the progress needed to be made in the nuclear construction industry.

Mr. Penhaligon: Will the Minister say when the House gave its approval to the expenditure of these massive sums of money on this aspect of the nuclear development programme?

Mr. Howell: If the hon. Gentleman is talking about the future building of nuclear power stations, I have to remind him that it has always been made clear that each project would be assessed case by case in the light of the performance of the industry and in the light of electricity demand. As each application arises for a nuclear power station, it will be assessed. I am sure that the House will continue, in questions and debates on this vitally important matter, to make known its views as the nuclear power programme unfolds.

British Gas Corporation

Mr. Eggar: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has for the introduction of private capital into the operations of the British Gas Corporation.

Mr. Norman Lamont: My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to introduce private capital into the British Gas Corporation.

Mr. Eggar: I am sure that many Government supporters are extremely disappointed with that statement. Would not the efficiency to the BGC and the benefit of the country be increased considerably if, at the very miniumum, the showrooms were disposed of, if the monopsony power of the corporation were removed and if BGC's oil interests were sold off?

Mr. Lamont: I note what my hon. Friend said. On the question of the showrooms, I do not think that I can add to what I said earlier. This matter is under consideration, and consultations are under way. As regards the future of the corporation's oil assets, including Wytch Farm, that, too, is under consideration. My hon. Friend has asked me on several occasions whether we could allow competition in gas supplies to producers in the North Sea. As my hon. Friend knows, there are many arguments in favour of that, and that, too, is a matter that we are considering.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Sitting Hours

Mr. Dormand: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make proposals for changes in the hours of sittings of the House.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Paymaster General and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym): I have at present no such proposals.

Mr. Dormand: Why is the right hon. Gentleman so reluctant to initiate such a change? Is it because he agrees with the concept of part-time Members of Parliament? Does not he agree that it would be a much more efficient way of proceeding to have day-time sittings? Would not it result in the much more efficient conduct of the affairs of the nation?
Will the right hon. Gentleman answer a question which no other Leader of the House has answered? Why can every other Western democracy arrange its affairs in this way when we cannot?

Mr. Pym: Taking the hon. Gentleman's last question first, the reason is that every country and every Parliament has a different history. In our case, we evolved and developed in this way, and comparisons with other Parliaments are not necessarily relevant. This matter has been considered from time to time by the Procedure Committee. On the last occasion that it considered this, it came down heavily against any radical alteration. It is right to say that for a change of considerable substance such as the hon. Gentleman proposes, it is better to proceed by the general agreement of the House, and I do not think that such general agreement exists about the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he allowed himself to be pushed into accepting some of the proposals which emanate from time to time from Opposition Members, it would only be a matter of time before hon. Members demanded time-and-a-half for working after five o'clock and, presumably, double time for attending to their civic duties on Sundays? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that most of us think that the present arrangements are perfectly satisfactory?

Mr. Pym: So long as I hold my present office, I hope that I shall be able to help the House to steer and develop its procedures in accordance with the general wishes of the House.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, from the point of view of the Opposition, the most important weapon in our hands in the House is time? If there were any kind of agreement to restrict the hours of sitting of the House to ordinary office hours, it would be to the great advantage to the Government of the day. That would be deplorable.

Mr. Pym: Yes. There is a desire in some quarters, understandably perhaps, to stop all-night sittings. But if we did that, we should stop the voices of those who disagreed, and this place is about people who disagree. Any change which was restrictive of time is one against which the House should guard carefully. I am not suggesting that we should turn our faces completely against any change, because that would not be right. But we have to bear in mind that time is very important for the Opposition.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does my right hon. Friend share my astonishment at finding myself in full agreement with the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) about this?

Mr. William Hamilton: Keep quiet about it!

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is it not the case that we have experimented with morning sittings, which were found to be a dismal failure? If we wish to do our duty in this place to which we have had the honour to be returned, we must be prepared to sit late.

Mr. Pym: I think that is absolutely right but, for example, there has been a change in the timing of our Friday sittings, and, on the whole, that minor change, has met with general approval of the House.

Members' Secretaries (Pensions)

Mr. Moate: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects the Top Salaries Review Body to advise on the rate of pension contribution for the secretaries of hon. Members.

Mr. Pym: In its report No. 17 the review body said that although it had not been possible to consider the point in sufficient detail to make proposals at the present time, it would be its intention to look into this question specifically and to report its findings in the event of its being required to carry out a further review of parliamentary pay and allowances next year.

Mr. Moate: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as only one-third of the money voted by the House for Members' secretaries' pensions has been spent, it is not clear that hon. Members are being rather more generous to themselves than to their secretaries? Will he at least try to correct the matter by asking the Top Salaries Review Body to look at the 10 per cent. limit that the Government have imposed in the current year so that another year's contributions are not lost for secretaries?

Mr. Pym: It would not be practicable to do that this year but, as my hon. Friend knows, I requested the review body to consider the matter because the limit—if that is the correct word—was proposed by my predecessor after careful consideration and consultation, and it seemed to be right to adhere to it. However, in view of my hon. Friend's representations, I felt that an outside independent view on the matter would be helpful. I still hope that in due course that can be done.

Scottish Business

Mr. Canavan: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what effect he estimates his arrangements for dealing with Scottish parliamentary business will have on the amount of time the House spends on Scottish business.

Mr. Pym: If the House accepts the Government's proposals on the Order Paper this would increase the number of debates in the Scottish Grand Committee. I would not anticipate that this would affect the time at present spent on Scottish business on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Canavan: Why does the Leader of the House intend to wait until next Session before increasing the number of days available to the Scottish Grand Committee to discuss Scottish matters and Estimates? Why will he not introduce the extra time in this Session so that, if necessary, the Scottish Grand Committee may meet in Scotland before the end of the long recess to discuss important matters such as Scottish unemployment, which will probably be well over 300,000 by then?

Mr. Pym: If, when we debate these motions fairly soon, the House decides to change significantly the arrangements for debating Scottish business, it seems that the right moment to begin that new process would be next Session. However, in the meantime, as I understand it, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has recently agreed to an Opposition proposal that there should be six Estimate day debates this Session and there may be a second matter day debate. Although we have not had an opportunity and I have not yet brought the motions before


the House, nevertheless seems that there will be an increase in the time that is devoted to Scottish business in the way that I have just mentioned.

Mr. Lang: Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposal that the Scottish Grand Committee should meet occasionally in Scotland could be fraught with hazard? If a Committee of this House were to meet in isolation in, say, Edinburgh, would not there be a danger of its nature and functions being misunderstood?

Mr. Pym: The inter-party group that met to discuss these matters came to the conclusion that that would be a matter for the House to decide. I am sure that that is so, and I hope to give the House that opportunity fairly soon.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is it not scandalous that in the Scottish Grand Committee there can be no meaningful votes on subjects discussed by it, that it is unable to reach any conclusions on the outcome of Scottish business and that, furthermore, the six Estimate days are concentrated within a three-week period in the high summer, leaving many important issues undebated during the rest of the year?

Mr. Pym: The way in which the Scottish Grand Committee and the Scottish Committees discuss and deal with their business has been going on for considerably longer than either the hon. Gentleman or I have been in the House. Of course, it is possible for the House to adjust it from time to time. Perhaps the motions that I have tabled following the inter-party talks will yield that result, but in the meantime I am sure that the House wishes Scottish business to be dealt with in Committee upstairs, in the way that it has been dealt with for many years.

Refreshment Department Wine Stock

Mr. Freud: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his value of the wine stock of the Refreshment Department (a) at cost price, and (b) as a percentage of the monthly consumption.

Mr. Joseph Dean: I have been asked to reply.
At 30 April, the cost value of wines stocked by the Refreshment Department was £30,207. This represented 290 per cent. of the monthly consumption, based on average consumption during the three months from 1 February to 30 April this year.

Mr. Freud: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those figures. Does not he consider that, in view of the quality of the wine that we get, it is purchased more for instant consumption than for appreciation in value or quality? Might it not be an idea to have a small percentage of that wine stock put by so that it might appreciate both in quality and value?

Mr. Dean: The taste of drinkers varies. Hon. Members who have tasted wines on behalf of the Catering Committee have put that view. Nevertheless, the Committee as a whole decided on the basis of the known evidence that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members prefer cheaper wines. That may have some connection with the salaries that we receive.

Mr. John Silkin: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, Warrington or no Warrington, there will be no necessity to increase the claret stock in the House?

Mr. Dean: I share my right hon. Friend's views and optimism.

Oral Answers to Questions — PAYMASTER GENERAL

Government Information Officers

Mr. Marlow: asked the Paymaster General what is the number of Government information officers; and how they are co-ordinated.

Mr. Pym: I understand from my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Civil Service Department, that there were 1,217 staff in the information officer group at 1 January 1981. That is on the basis of counting two part-timers as one officer. It has been the practice for many years for regular co-ordination meetings to take place.

Mr. Marlow: If, at some time in the future, my right hon. Friend would like to mount an information campaign about the EEC to the British public, will he ask his information officers or anyone else who might be involved in such a campaign to be objective and not to try to sell this somewhat shop-soiled institution as if it were some form of industrial energising breakfast cereal?

Mr. Pym: Different Ministers in different Departments would approach the subject in different ways, according to their interests. For example, the Departments of Trade and Employment attach most importance to the jobs that go with the trade that we do with the European Community. The Foreign Office would approach the matter in a different way in view of its responsibilities. That is the best answer that I can give my hon. Friend. At present, there is no campaign, as such, to sell or promote the European Community. It is done by departmental Ministers, as they think best.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend intend to advise his information officers, or anyone else in his Department, to spread a word of thanks, if nothing else, for the work that has been done over the years by his Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, particularly in view of his forthcoming sixtieth birthday?

Mr. Pym: Perhaps I should make it clear that I am not responsible for the information officers. They belong to the Departments for which they work.

Departmental Information Services

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Paymaster General what new initiatives he proposes on the co-ordination of departmental information services.

Mr. Pym: I shall propose new initiatives as and when I deem that appropriate.

Mr. Taylor: As, clearly, the Minister is looking for suggestions, may I suggest that, as local government spending is one of the major economic problems facing the Government, he should ask some of the 1,200 information officers to spend a little time telling local authorities and the British people about the uniquely successful privatisation scheme in Southend, whereby, through privatisation, the ratepayers are saved a vast sum of money without reduction of services?

Mr. Pym: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will do that—perhaps he is already discussing it with the information officers in his Department—together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and


the Secretary of State for Wales. It is their responsibility to promote the information that is relevant to their Departments. I am sure that my right hon. Friends will take note of what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Is the Leader of the House aware of the trouncing that Government policy received in the recent local government elections throughout the country? Is it not time that he considered new initiatives regarding Government information?

Mr. Pym: I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman's party did quite as well in that local election campaign as it had hoped.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: In view of the lurid misrepresentation in various parts of the world of Government policy in Northern Ireland, will my right hon. Friend see what can be done to improve the co-ordination

between the Northern Ireland Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the presentation of our case at home and abroad?

Mr. Pym: Yes, Sir. I have already spent a great deal of time and trouble on this matter. All our missions and embassies abroad are well briefed. We take as much trouble as we can with the foreign press because we are concerned that the truth and the real facts, with no misrepresentations, should emerge. It is a difficult problem. We know what television crews and some journalists can be in such circumstances. We do our best. Many leader columns in the United States, in European and other countries have expressed the truth about Northern Ireland in a satisfactory way. My hon. Friend raises an important matter. We are doing everything that we can to try to ensure that a proper presentation of the reality and the facts reaches all countries.

Civil Service (Dispute)

The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): With permission, I wish to make a further statement about the Civil Service dispute.
I regret to inform the House that the talks we have been holding with the Civil Service unions aimed at resolving the present dispute broke down on Friday. The talks had been concerned with both future arrangements for determining Civil Service pay and this year's increase. In response to the union's anxiety about arrangements for settling Civil Service pay in the future we told them that we were ready to set up an independent outside inquiry to advise on the best up-to-date arrangements.
Furthermore, since this was unlikely to report in time for the 1982 pay settlement, the Government would not set their cash limit for Civil Service pay next year in advance of negotiations with the unions. But the Government were not prepared to agree to the union's further demand that they should be guaranteed access to arbitration for 1982 should agreement not be reached in negotiation.
As to this year's increase, the Government originally offered 6 per cent. and this was subsequently raised in the course of negotiation to 7 per cent. to be financed within the 6 per cent. cash limit by savings in staff and administrative costs. But the unions insisted that they would not settle at this figure. They wanted more money this year.
The Government are satisfied that the 7 per cent. offer for this year together with the assurances that we have given for the future are both fair and reasonable. Indeed, more than 2 million workers in other public services have already settled at around this figure and, faced with the economic facts of life, many in the private sector with less security of employment have settled for less.
The unions have now announced their intention to take further disruptive action and to extend it into the social security and unemployment fields. The Government deplore this decision. They will, of course, do all within their power to minimise the damage and hardship which are caused to individuals and the country. To continue this dispute can only do damage to individuals, to the country and to the Civil Service; it can be of benefit to no one.

Mr. Alan Williams: I thank the Minister for his statement. In the context of next year, 1982, does he recognise that negotiations can have no meaning without a fallback provision for arbitration in the event of an impasse, as happened this year? Will the Government be using the 1981 negotiations to try to alter the basis of Civil Service pensions? In the context of escalation, which has come about after three months during which the unions have tried to ensure that the dispute had the minimum impact on the public, what contingency arrangements have the Government made to ensure that the unemployed and those in receipt of social security benefits are protected, as all hon. Members wish them to be?
It is now clear that the Government completely miscalculated the mood and anger within the Civil Service and, more important, that in acting on the Prime Minister's instructions they have mishandled the build-up and the escalation by unilaterally tearing up the Pay Research Unit procedure and by refusing arbitration?
Is 7 per cent. the absolute limit or maximum compatible with the 6 per cent. cash limits? Is there any headroom? If there is, why has the Minister not told the House? What is the precise figure? Is it not a fact that consistently Government's underspend by about 3 per cent. within their cash limits?
Will the Minister take the opportunity categorically to deny that the Prime Minister, with her well-known vindictiveness, intends to interfere with promotions and leave arrangements for civil servants who have been involved in strikes? The Civil Service would be demoralised if in two or three years people were still being punished for having stood up today against the Prime Minister for what they believed to be their rights.
Will the Minister deny the extraordinary story that, as a result of a bout of pettiness and silliness at being opposed, the Prime Minister intends to use the Honours List to punish strikers? Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear to the Prime Minister that that is a matter for the Royal Prerogative rather than for the Prime Minister? Does he agree that such action would embroil Her Majesty in the Government's industrial dispute? If there is any truth in that absurd and preposterous story, was there any consultation with the Palace before it was carefully leaked to the press for the weekend?
Finally, and most importantly, will the Minister now tell us—he has failed to do so repeatedly at the Dispatch Box—why the Government will not go to arbitration when the unions are willing to do so? Since the Government tore up the PRU report because the figures did not fit their prejudices, is their case so weak on pay for the civil servants that it will not stand the impartial analysis of independent arbitrators?

Mr. Hayhoe: The right hon. Gentleman asked whether it was possible to have meaningful negotiations in 1982 without a prior commitment to arbitration. Of course it is. We have said that those negotiations will be conducted without a predetermined cash limit so that meaningful negotiations can take place.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether pensions would figure in the 1981 negotiations. I think that he meant to ask whether they would figure in the 1982 negotiations. We have already made it clear that they are not figuring in the 1981 negotiations but that that will be one of the factors which must be taken into account in 1982. We have said to the unions that both sides should be prepared to bring all relevant factors to those meaningful negotiations.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether contingency arrangements were designed to protect people in receipt of benefits from the DHSS and the Department of Employment. The best protection is for the Civil Service unions to call off their proposed action. There will be no immediate effects for the majority of beneficiaries. However, no one should return his order book to the DHSS Newcastle upon Tyne central office. There are emergency plans in the DHSS and Department of Employment local offices to make payments where they have been disrupted by industrial action at the central computers. The emergency arrangements are being publicised by the Secretaries of State for Social Services and Employment.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the 7 per cent. offer was the maximum figure in relation to the 6 per cent. cash limit. I assure him that 7 per cent. is the maximum that the Government believe can safely be offered to


maintain the 6 per cent. cash limit policy. We have made it absolutely clear on numerous occasions—and there should never have been any doubt about it among the Civil Service union leaders—that the Government's 6 per cent. cash limit should not be breached.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the question of arbitration and asked why it is being denied for 1981. The reason is clear. My right hon. and noble Friend made it perfectly clear to the Civil Service unions in August last year that cash limits would play a major part in the 1981 settlement. In October he confirmed that they would the the determinant for the 1981 settlement. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman would understand that Civil Service union leaders realised then that if the cash limit was to be the dominant factor arbitration could not play a part.
The right hon. Gentleman criticised what he saw as the vindictive and malicious policy of the Government. Any vindictiveness in the dispute must lie with the Civil Service unions. Their action is vindictive towards the community as a whole. I appeal to them to call it off.

Mr. Williams: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. He covered many of my points to his satisfaction, but not to ours. Will he pursue my questions about leave, promotion and the Honours List?

Mr. Hayhoe: The right hon. Gentleman referred to press speculation during the weekend which appeared to suggest that the Government were determined to punish civil servants. Of course, the Government are not doing anything of the sort. I recognise, as the hon. Gentleman should recognise, that most civil servants continue to give loyal service to their Departments. They are keeping the business of Government running. It is right that we should pay tribute to their work.

Mr. John Peyton: Does my hon. Friend think that the comments of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) come rather oddly from someone who was a member of a Labour Administration who did not have a happy time when dealing with Civil Service pay? Will he make it absolutely clear that the habit of promoting and fostering grievances, and taking them out on the public at every turn by knocking those who can be most easily hurt, is the road to disrupting the whole community and to impoverishing the nation?

Mr. Hayhoe: I agree with my right hon. Friend that the Labour Administration, through the application of their pay policy, were responsible for reducing the level of Civil Service pay in real terms. They did so to such an extent that a substantial average cumulative increase of almost 50 per cent. during the past two years was granted throughout the Civil Service so that it should catch up and return to relativity with outside industry. That was a measure of the falling behind that occurred under the Labour Administration. This Government have put the matter right.
I agree with my right hon. Friend that, whatever sympathies individuals may have with those who criticise the Government's actions on Civil Service pay, there can be no justification for civil servants taking such disruptive action, which is clearly designed to damage the country and the community. The present threat to extend the action to damage the interests of those least able to protect themselves within the community is disgraceful.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the Government consider whether they can make a fresh start by recognising the inconsistency between their theory of the cause of inflation and the proper policy for dealing with it, and the attempt forcibly to alter real relativities of remuneration which have hitherto been considered to be right? Will they not learn from the experience of 1978–79 the folly and the outcome of attempting to deal with inflation by fixing money wages at a lower level than the current level of inflation?

Mr. Hayhoe: The Government's offer of 7 per cent., taking account of all the circumstances—I have explained some of them such as the relative job security, the conditions of employment and comparisons with outside industry—is fair and reasonable. On the more theoretical and philosophical aspects of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I heard his exchange with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last week, and I do not wish to add to her remarks.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to allow questions on the statement to run until 4 o'clock. We must then leave the statement as there is a heavy programme before the House.

Mr. R. A. McCrindle: Does my hon. Friend agree that the escalation of the Civil Service dispute is bound to have a disproportionate effect on that section of society least able to survive the deprivation of its benefits? If that is correct, and if it is correct that the Government's principal weapon in mitigating that hardship is to authorise the hand-writing of Giro cheques while the computers are non-operational, is my hon. Friend aware of any Civil Service union attempting to intervene to prevent that from happening? Will not such action extend the hardship that child allowance beneficiaries, retirement pensioners and the unemployed are bound to suffer?

Mr. Hayhoe: I agree that the proposed escalation, which I hope will not take place, will adversely affect those within the community who are often the most vulnerable.
On the question of hand-writing cheques, as far as I am aware when computers have been taken out the arrangements have worked satisfactorily in most offices. Only a small number of offices—22 out of 1,000—have been closed to the public, and their staff are continuing to write Girocheques. A few offices—three in Scotland and one on Merseyside—are closed because staff are on strike. Currently, the manual procedures are working well. If the strike continues difficulties will increase simply because of the passage of time.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Why does the Minister imagine that because other workers have settled for about 7 per cent. that is a significant argument? Civil servants can point to others who have settled for a substantially higher figure. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's case is extraordinarily weak because of their refusal to go to arbitration and to tie themselves to arbitration in future?

Mr. Hayhoe: The right hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. The 6 per cent. cash limit applies to the public services, where the taxpayer or ratepayer directly provides the resources for paying wages. That limit is being held.


When I said that more than 2 million people had settled within the limit, I was referring to local authorities, teachers, and Nationall Health Service staff. It would be a betrayal of what they have done, and the settlements that they have made without industrial action, to say that those who make the community suffer should be rewarded. It would be an absurd sense of proper responsible action for the Government to reward those who damage the community. We have no intention of going down that road.

Mr. Terence Higgins: Is my hon. Friend aware that he is right to stand firm on the present cash limit offer and to resist the claims for arbitration because there is no known case of an arbitrator having the nerve to come down absolutely in favour of one side? The present offer is as much as can be afforded in the current circumstances.
Is my hon. Friend further aware that there is little point in standing firm on the cash limits this year if he is prepared to negotiate with no predetermined cash limit next year? As the offer has not been accepted by the unions, will he withdraw it?

Mr. Hayhoe: We are standing firm on the cash limits for this year. I think that my right hon. Friend does not know the full history of civil Service arbitration. It is not true to say that in every instance the arbitrator has split the difference. In recent years there have been occasions when arbitrators have firmly supported the Government's view on issues in dispute.
Having said as far back as August 1980 that cash limits would be the major determinant, it was clear that arbitration, which could vary those cash limits, was not available and was not relevant. The Government have been right to offer the Civil Service unions the possiblility of genuine negotiations next year without a predetermined cost of the settlement. That offer has been made, and it was a fair one for the Government to have made in all the circumstances.

Mr. David Winnick: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that full responsibility for the dispute, its escalation and the undoubted difficulties that will be caused by the dispute's escalation lie fully with the Prime Minister, who has set out to humilate this group of public servants, many of whom are on low pay? Will he comment on the reports that have appeared in a number of newspapers that, while Lord Soames was willing to reach a compromise with those negotiating on behalf of the unions, it was the Prime Minister who made it clear that there could be no compromise? Is he aware that the Civil Service unions are determined not to surrender?

Mr. Hayhoe: I draw some comfort from the hon. Gentleman's words, because he nearly always gets things wrong. He seems to be pursuing his own vendetta against the Prime Minister and using the Civil Service dispute as the vehicle for his absurd allegations.

Sir David Price: My hon. Friend spoke about averages. Will he tell the House how many different categories of public seervants are involved? Will he publish in the Official Report the pay record of the different categories? It seems to some of us that it is asking rather a lot to try to negotiate jointly for clerks in the DHSS, for example, and air traffic controllers. Would it not be a good thing to try to get negotiations nearer to where the individual action takes place?

Mr. Hayhoe: There are many different grades and categories involved in this year's negotiations. All the grades and categories within the non-industrial Civil Service are included—over half a million civil servants. Over the past two years there has been a cumulative average catching-up increase of nearly 50 per cent. Necessarily, that average conceals wide variations. It ranges from 30 per cent. to more than 60 per cent. I know that my hon. Friend is particularly concerned with the scientific Civil Service. Senior principal scientific officers would get twice the amount that they received last year if they accepted 7 per cent. for this year.

Mr. David Penhaligon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many would concur with the Government's observation that civil servants underestimate the value of their job security? However, would not the Government have been on far better ground if they had set up a body to try to revalue that job security and had incorporated that revaluation in the PRU settlement? There are many who would have found that comprehensible and understandable.

Mr. Hayhoe: When the negotiations started with the unions this year we said that the pay agreement and pay research would not apply and that the cash limit would be the determinant. We have made it clear that we are prepared to set up an independent authoritative inquiry to find ways of determining Civil Service pay in future. I have already said in the House and to the Civil Service trade union leaders that one of the factors that must be considered is relative job security. It is an important factor. It is absurd that many Civil Service trade union leaders try to set it on one side and say that it does not matter.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: What is the main reason put forward by the Civil Service trade union leaders for arguing that their members should have more than 7 per cent., bearing in mind the economic conditions now facing the country and the fact that they have had a catching-up exercise in the same way as Members of Parliament? Could it be that the Civil Service trade union leaders have overplayed their hand by asking for 15 per cent. in the first place?

Mr. Hayhoe: The Civil Service unions came together and agreed upon a claim which was basically a 15 per cent. increase with a minimum underpinning of a flat-rate sum for the lower paid. I believe that they overplayed their case and that their claim was out of tune with what was happening generally in the country. They have damaged their case by the way in which they have pursued that claim. I hope that they will have second thoughts and will realise that it is in the long-term interests of civil servants and of the Civil Service as an institution that the action should be called off, that we get back to normal working and that we begin what must be the long and difficult job of repairing the damage that the dispute has done.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that civil servants cannot understand why the Government should have no regard for a 6 per cent. cash limit when it comes to the police and the Armed Services when he is asking them, in the light of inflation rate of 12 per cent., to accept without a fight a radical reduction in their standard of living? No self-respecting worker would


concede that case without a struggle with the Government. Is there any prospect of further talks in the immediate future?

Mr. Hayhoe: The hon. Gentleman used the term "no self-respecting worker". Surely no self-respecting hon. Member should underestimate what those in the police and the Armed Services do for the community and the sacrifices and dangers that are implicit in their jobs. A further contrast is that the police and those in the Armed Services do not go on strike. The contrast that the hon. Gentleman seeks to draw is a mistaken one.

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: My hon. Friend has mentioned emergency arrangements that have been made by the Secretaries of State for Social Services and Employment. Will he ask our right hon. Friends to make details of those arrangements available to all hon. Members so that we may talk about them and publicise them in our constituencies and thereby protect those who are most likely to suffer and who are least able to withstand the suffering that will be caused by a minority of civil servants?

Mr. Hayhoe: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. I shall seek to follow his suggestion. I know that the disputes at passport offices have been causing considerable hardship. Emergency arrangements have been made that reduce the effect of the action that is being taken.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Minister have no concept of the resentment within the Civil Service at the scrapping of the Pay Research Unit system? How can he say that it is right this year to scrap that system and then say that next year the Government will discuss some further arrangements? Would it not be

better to go to arbitration this year and to take that into account when it comes to setting up new arrangements? If that is not done, the damage and mistrust caused by the Government within the Civil Service will have repercussions far beyond the present dispute.

Mr. Hayhoe: Whatever the resentment within the Civil Service may be, we must recall that when the one-day strike was called only 52 or 53 per cent. of civil servants responded to it. I find that the resentment within the community is against the Civil Service, which is perceived as pushing beyond reason its case for more money this year.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that, by their own choice, the Government are in a rough, tough situation of free collective bargaining? Therefore, is it not extremely difficult for the Minister concerned with the Civil Service to negotiate if the Cabinet makes a predetermined decision? While it is right for the Government to stand firm on the cash limits, is it not important that the Minister should have flexibility in his negotiations?

Mr. Hayhoe: My hon. Friend is right. I take it that he fully supports my comments about the arrangements which are being made for the negotiations in 1982. With regard to this year, it was the careful and considered judgment of the Government last year that it would not be possible, in the economic difficulties confronting the nation at this time, for there to be general, free negotiations. We told the Civil Service unions that the cash limits would be the determinant, and much flowed from that. I am sorry that the Civil Service union leaders and many of their members did not believe that the Government were determined to hold to that policy. All that I can do this afternoon is to reiterate that we shall stand firm on the 6 per cent. cash limit. It will not be breached this year.

Education (Scotland) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

COLLEGES OF EDUCATION

'In section 77 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980—
(a) At the beginning of subsection (3) there shall be inserted the worth "Subject to subsection (3A) below,";
(b) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
(3A) Subsection (3) above shall not apply to colleges of education in existence on 1st January 1981".'.—[Mr. Harry Ewing.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We turn from one group of Government workers who are disgruntled—the civil servants—to another group of State employees who are equally disgruntled—the academic and non-academic staff at some, if not all, the colleges of education in Scotland.
I refer particularly to the colleges of education that are now under threat of closure—Callendar Park college of education in Falkirk in my constituency and Hamilton college of education in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). We add to those the Catholic training college at Craiglockhart, which is under threat of being merged with Notre Dame. I understand that the negotiations have not gone nearly as well as the Minister would have expected.
The new clause gives us the opportunity to debate the matter on the Floor of the House for the first time during the whole controversy. One morning at about 7 o'clock, because of an arrangement through the usual channels, we were able to obtain five brief minutes on the subject on the Floor of the House, but the only time that the threat to those three colleges of education has been debated has been at the request of the Opposition in the Scottish Grand Committee. On that day the Government Members in that Committee, including the Secretary of State and the Minister responsible for education in Scotland, did not even have the courage to back up their threat to those colleges with their votes.
The record of the Scottish Grand Committee will show that 40 votes were recorded against the Government that day. Not one vote, not even that of the Minister responsible for education in Scotland, was recorded in favour of the Government's proposition.

Mr. Barry Henderson: What was the motion?

Mr. Ewing: The motion was exactly the same as that on which the Minister and his right hon. Friend voted in 1977 when the colleges were under threat. At that time the Minister, who was then the Opposition spokesman, thought that the matter was highly important and that he should vote on the motion. The only difference between 1977 and 1981 is that the Minister has changed sides. He has gone back on everything that he said in 1977. He has twisted and turned, not only on the colleges of education, but on Hampden Park and everything else that happened when he was Opposition spokesman. It goes without 

saying that there is general agreement in Scotland that the word of the Minister is not to be trusted. We have found that to be true with regard to the colleges of education.
Earlier in the controversy about the colleges the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart) gave all sorts of promises to all sorts of people. I know that he will want to take this opportunity to record his vote in the Lobbies.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I agree that I contributed to the debate, but to which promises is the hon. Gentleman referring?

Mr. Ewing: I understand that in meetings with various people connected with Hamilton college of education the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East made it clear that he opposed the Government's proposal to close that college. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head in disagreement. If he says that that is not true, I willingly withdraw the comment. We shall leave it to the record of the meetings between the staff of Hamilton college of education and the hon. Member to reveal the truth of the matter.
If the new clause were to be passed by the House it would prevent the Secretary of State—it would save him from himself in many ways—from closing or proposing to close Hamilton and Callendar Park colleges of education and merging Craiglockhart with Notre Dame. In other words, the new clause would preserve the status quo.
As I said earlier, the debate gives us the first opportunity to discuss this important issue on the Floor of the House. Again, there is a distinct difference between the situation in 1977, when the colleges were last under threat, and the present situation. There were at least two occasions in 1977 when we were able to debate the matter on the Floor of the House. There was at least another occasion over two days—not one day or 2½ hours—in the Scottish Grand Committee when hon. Members had a further opportunity to discuss the matter.
Therefore, I believe that the Government Whip, who is presently trying to inspire his Back Benchers to take part in the debate, had some responsibility for preventing the House from discussing the matter and for effectively making sure that the House of Commons, as distinct from the Scottish Grand Committee, was denied the opportunity to record its vote on whether it was in favour of the proposal to close those colleges of education.
It is the intention of the Opposition to force this matter to a vote. Scottish Conservative Members will not be able to hide behind the technicality behind which they have hidden since the debate in the Scottish Grand Committee. Today they will have to vote either in favour of closing the colleges or of preventing the Secretary of State from closing them. The hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) is desperate to intervene, so I shall willingly give way.

Mr. Henderson: I hope that hon. Members will vote after having considered the issues carefully. The hon. Member will note that at the moment there are more hon. Members on Conservative Benches than on Opposition Benches.

Mr. George Foulkes: There is better quality on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Ewing: One hon. Member on the Opposition Benches is equal to seven hon. Members on the


Government Benches any day of the week. Numbers are not relevant. It is the quality that matters, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) said.
Let me give the background to our opposing the Secretary of State's closure of the two colleges. The record of the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) is disgraceful. In 1977, when similar proposals were made, the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend stomped Scotland, attending rally after rally. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) in the Chamber. He, too, played his shabby part. I remember him pleading the case for preserving Christian education to protect Craiglockhart college, and he received a standing ovation. I thought his attitude odd at the time, and it has now been overtaken by events forced on him by his right hon. Friend. They made promises to the academic and non-academic staff and students at the colleges that a Conservative Government would not close them. [Interruption.]
Hon. Members on the Conservative Benches may find this funny, but the lecturers and academic staff do not. I tell the hon. Member for Fife, East in particular that the students and their parents, from whom he will be seeking support in the not-too-distant future, do not find it funny either. I should not be surprised if he became a victim of their lack of humour on the subject. I warn hon. Gentlemen that the matter is not to be taken lightly.
The Scottish Conservative Party went even further than the promises made by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. It enticed the Prime Minister, who was then Leader of the Opposition, to come to Scotland and make a party political broadcast. She was interviewed by a good friend of mine, George Birrell of the Daily Express. It is the only time that I remember him stepping aside, which he must now bitterly regret. She gave an unequivocal assurance that the colleges of education would not be closed.
The circumstances now are no different. The student intake figures are the same. Tory Members argued in 1977 that the figures were sufficient to maintain 10 colleges, but now they are saying that they are sufficient to maintain only seven.
Let me put on record my displeasure with the way in which some Scottish colleges of education have stood back from the present campaign, as distinct from the united and co-ordinated compaign in 1977. Their silence does them no credit. In many ways they have encouraged the Minister to believe that he is right. If they do not protest when the Minister comes for Callendar Park, Craiglockhart and Hamilton, when will they protest? He will undoubtedly come for Craigie and Dundee. It is the style of the Government to do things by degrees. Having started with three, they will go on to four and five. The colleges that have stood aside from the battle may live to regret their intransigence in the campaign over the past 18 months.
4.15 pm
I shall give constructive reasons why the colleges should not be closed. First, the Minister still has not produced costings. He has been challenged by the colleges and has been asked by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and all the experts. Still, on 8 June 1981, we wait costings to show that, even according to the Government's

monetarist policy, the closures will mean savings. The opposite is true. All costings so far produced show that the closures will cost money. The Minister has steadfastly refused to respond, because he knows the answer. The costings will kill stone dead his argument that the colleges are not viable.
Callendar Park, in my constituency, was the centre for developing the primary curriculum. An inspector's report a few months ago made it clear that, although in primary education the three Rs were being taught ably, a great need existed to develop the curriculum. The Minister has ignored his own inspector's report. It is doubtful whether a more irresponsible Minister has ever been in charge of Scottish education. The damage that he has done to all sectors of education is almost beyond repair. His ignoring the report causes additional serious concern. He does not appear to consider the development of the primary curriculum to be important.
In addition, Callendar Park is the only college in the Central region. It serves not only the region's needs but those of Fife, part of Strathclyde and part of Tayside. It has a number of students from Cumbernauld. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), who is unfortunately not in the Chamber, recently sent me a letter from constituents of his. They are parents of a student at the college, and they expressed concern about the Government's proposals to close it. Here we have an example of a young lady coming to the college from the Highlands. Because of the college's specialty in primary education, its remit goes way beyond the Central region, which is a further reason why it should be retained.
In the Scottish Grand Committee, I said that in 1970–71 children in the Central region attended what were described as twilight classes; some went to school from 9 am to 3 pm and others from 3 pm to 8 pm, because of the shortage of teachers. Having overcome the shortage, the Minister does not feel it necessary to ensure that we have an adequate reservoir of teachers on which to draw should we run into further difficulties. Callendar Park serves a great need, not only in the Central region, but in a host of other areas. The case for maintaining the college is unanswerable. I repeat that the Minister has an opportunity to conduct an experiment at Callendar Park, which is not available elsewhere.
As the Minister knows, when the decision was made in 1977 to retain all 10 colleges my right hon. Friend decided that the colleges should become diversified. In the diversification of Callendar Park a large section of the building is taken up with the Forth Valley health board's college of nursing and midwifery. There is absolutely no doubt that in the short time that the college has been at Callendar Park the students of nursing and midwifery have benefited greatly from the presence of an educational institution in the same building. There has also been some spin-off to the college of education from the presence of the college of nursing and midwifery.
That situation would have permitted an experiment in the value of introducing some formal education, some academic input, into the training of nurses and midwives. The two institutions having been linked, in three or four years we could have assessed the outcome of the experiment. To the Minister, however, that is not important. It is of no interest to the Government. Three or four years is too far ahead for them to think about. Indeed,


three or four days is too far ahead for the Minister. Therefore, the Government will not bother with experiments at Callendar Park or anywhere else.
Throughout the debate Hamilton college of education has presented a vigorous case. I confess that I was somewhat concerned about the way in which the people at Hamilton originally seemed to want to go it alone, and I was glad that there was eventually much more co-operation among all the colleges under threat. To put it mildly, Hamilton college is an educationally deprived area. Any hon. Member who disputes that does not know much about the educational problems of Lanarkshire. Just as we had been able to solve the problems of the Central region, so we were beginning to get to grips with the teacher supply problem in Lanarkshire. At this very time, however, the Minister decides to close Hamilton college and to damage any further possibility of dealing with the enormous teacher supply problem in Lanarkshire. The Minister is aware of the magnitude of those problems, yet he still goes ahead, as though blindfolded, with his proposal to close Hamilton college.
The people of Hamilton were indeed supported by some Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East says that he did not really give the kind of support that I ascribe to him. I therefore correct any wrong impression that I may have given. Nevertheless, prominent Conservatives in the area gave Hamilton college every encouragement to and support in seeking to persuade the Secretary of State not to go ahead with the closure. They lived with the problem. They were not sitting in some abstract position not knowing what was going on. They knew what would be the consequences of the proposed closure. The Minister should come to terms with the fact that Lanarkshire is a special area and should have been dealt with in a vastly different way from that which he has adopted.
A factor common to both colleges is in-service training. I understand that the Minister has now given some commitment to Hamilton and Callendar Park that in-service training will remain at both colleges. That is an improvement on his original position, when he issued his infamous written answer at 5 o'clock in the evening on 6 August last year. There were then to be no jobs for staff at either of the two colleges and redundancies were to be 100 per cent. I understand that the Minister has now moved on from that—he will have the opportunity to confirm or deny this—and that there is now some guarantee that at least 75 per cent. of the staff will be offered jobs at other colleges, such as Moray House, Jordonhill and possibly one or two others.
The Minister shakes his head, but that is the impression that I have been given by the authorities at both colleges. If that impression is wrong, I hope that he will take this opportunity to ensure that they do not proceed any further in their present negotiations with the Scottish Office in that mistaken belief. If no guarantee of employment has been given to any percentage of the staff, it might be safer if he put that on the record, because my impression that there is some guarantee that at least 75 per cent. of the staff will be offered alternative positions in other colleges is shared by those who govern the colleges. I hope that the Minister will clear that up as it is very important since the college authorities have been talked into having discussions with his officials on the basis of arrangements of that kind.
There are two further points. The first is the accommodation problem at both receiving colleges. I

understand that Callendar Park is to be transferred to Moray House, which simply does not have the accommodation to take either the staff or the students. I therefore envisage—again, the Minister will have the opportunity to confirm or deny this—that if the closure proposals are bulldozed through the House Callendar Park will become an annexe of Moray House. If that is so, I should be grateful if the Minister would put that, too, on the record. According to the room availability survey made in 1978, which has not been updated, Moray House simply cannot accommodate Callendar Park. I suspect that the position at Jordanhill is the same and that Hamilton college will therefore merely become an annexe of Jordanhill.
At the end of the day, therefore, even if the Minister's silly proposals are bulldozed through, it seems that all that will be saved in the process will be the tea and buns for the two boards of governors at Hamilton and Callendar Park. They will no longer be required, as the colleges will come under the jurisdiction of the governors of Jordanhill and Moray House. The House is entitled to ask whether all the aggro, all the upset and all the disturbance has been merely to save about 10 cups of tea and morning rolls for the governors when they attend a board meeting, as no payment of fees is involved in their appointments. Is that what all this aggro is about? Certainly that appears to be where the Minister is now leading the House. Again, he will have the opportunity to make the up-to-date position clear to the House.
I do not speak for the people at Craiglockhart, but I am sure that they feel that they have been deceived in the way in which they have been persuaded to enter into negotiations with Notre Dame on proposals to merge the two colleges. Again, it is worth noting that the proposals would merely mean that Craiglockhart and Notre Dame would be controlled by one board of governors rather than two.
There is therefore no alternative but to conclude, after nearly two years of aggro and in-fighting and the real confrontation between the students of Hamilton and the Minister at Radio Clyde, when letters of denial flew backwards and forwards between the students and the Minister, who seemed to have treated the students rather frivolously on that occassion, that all that aggro was merely to save three sets of governors. That is all that this amounts to.
I freely admit that Conservative Members are sometimes reasonable, and this is as good a day as any to be reasonable. Conservative Members ask whether it is worth the trouble to save three quangos, because possibly that is the virility symbol that the Secretary of State at present displays before us.
4.30 pm
The Catholic teacher training presence in the East of Scotland is an important presence, as the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Pentlands was at pains to point out to the whole country in 1977. He was not shy at that time. However, during the present crisis I have not heard him say a word about the threat to that presence. Not a whisper has crossed his lips.
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has changed his mind or whether some blinding conversion has happened since he entered the portals of Dover House. I do not know whether he is fired by the ambition that is speculated on weekly in the Sunday Post and Sunday Mail


that promotion is in the offing, but not a word has crossed his lips about the importance of Catholic teacher training in the East of Scotland.
Yet the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North, is about to deal the fatal blow that gave his hon. Friend such concern in 1977. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if he were to join us in the Lobby we would protect him against the wrath of the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who I understand takes the strongest possible exception to a Conservative Member joining a Labour Member on anything—

Mr. Donald Dewar: Except pairing.

Mr. Ewing: Except pairing, as my hon. Friend mentions. If rumour is true, the Solicitor-General for Scotland has reacted harshly to the fact that some Conservative Members supported my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) on his Abolition of Warrant Sales (Scotland) Bill. I can give the hon. Member for Pentlands the absolute assurance that we would protect him from the wrath of the Solicitor-General for Scotland. We would even table an early-day motion stating what a fine chap the hon. Gentleman was if he were to join us in the Lobby tonight.
The new clause gives the House a last opportunity to consider this matter. I suspect that the next time we debate the colleges of education will be when the Secretary of State and his junior Ministers lay the orders that seek to close those colleges. I give the Government advance notice that those orders will also be fought vigorously. We shall not give up this fight easily. Today's debate gives us one more opportunity to persuade the Under-Secretary of State that he has got it wrong. The hon. Gentleman got it right in 1977. We see no good reason why he should change his mind in 1981. In particular, we do not regard his being a Minister as a good reason for changing his mind.
I am sure that my hon. Friends would not seek to intervene in the debate if I had an assurance from the hon. Gentleman right now that he would accept the new clause. I am prepared to give way to him so that he can accept it. If he did so, I would use all my persuasive powers to urge my hon. Friends not to intervene. That would be difficult, but I would try to prevent them from intervening. However, as usual, my invitation to the Minister has fallen on deaf ears.
We intend to push the new clause to a vote. I know that my hon. Friends will join me in the Lobby. They will knock me over in the rush to get in, because they realise the importance of the colleges of education. However, Conservative Members do not seem to regard the colleges of education as that important. I invite them seriously to consider this matter. Now is the time for rebellion. The election is drawing near. I invite them to join us in the Lobby and to give the new clause a Second Reading.

Mr. John Maxton: I am somewhat surprised that I have been called immediately after my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing), in view of some of the statements that were made by Conservative Back Benchers both in the Scottish Grand Committee and at outside meetings that I attended.
I hope that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart) will speak about Hamilton college of

education. Along with the hon. Gentleman, I attended meetings of the staff and the committees of Hamilton college of education. I may have been left with the wrong impression, but I felt that what the hon. Gentleman said at those meetings and in his speech in the Scottish Grand Committee meant that he was as opposed as I and my hon. Friends are to the Secretary of State's proposals.
I shall also be surprised if the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) does not speak. He is the only Conservative Back Bencher who has spoken in favour of the Secretary of State's proposals. The hon. Gentleman is probably the only person in Scotland who has said anything in favour of them. I hope that he will not duck his responsibility on this occasion. But perhaps he has changed his mind. It may be that at long last he appreciates that what we have said all along is right. Perhaps he will join us in the Lobby tonight.
We can now speak in terms of closing the colleges of education rather than about the threat to close them. By their actions, Ministers have shown hypocrisy in their views. Perhaps more than most hon. Members, I had a clearer view of the way in which they acted when my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) put forward similar proposals in 1977. I was then chairman of the association of lecturers of the colleges of education. I led the campaign—I hope reasonably successfully—to persuade my right hon. Friend that his proposals were wrong. On every occasion I was joined vigorously by Conservative Members. They spoke against those proposals in the Scottish Grand Committee, and they tabled resolutions at the Conservative Party's Scottish conference.
I do not like admitting it publicly, but I organised and attended a fringe meeting at that conference to put the case in favour of the colleges of education. I chaired a meeting that was attended by the Minister, the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). At least two other Conservative Members who are now Ministers were also present. They fully supported the campaign against the proposal to close the colleges of education at that time.
As I said in my speech in the Scottish Grand Committee, on one occasion the Secretary of State for Scotland stood in a picket line outside New St. Andrew's House and supported the college lecturers who were campaigning against my right hon. Friend's proposals. The Secretary of State felt so strongly about this issue that he took to the streets. That is not unusual for Labour Members. We like to make our protests public; we like to demonstrate. That is the way in which we make our views known. But that is an unusual step for Conservative Members to take. Yet in 1977 the present Secretary of State felt so strongly about the proposals that he joined us on a picket line to make his protest.
Perhaps I am being a little unkind. Perhaps the Secretary of State felt strongly about the closure of Craigie college, in his constituency, and did not feel so strongly about the other colleges involved. We noted that when the time came for him to make his own proposals he did not suggest that the college in his constituency should close—which my right hon. Friend suggested would be one way forward. Instead, the right hon. Gentleman left that off the list, but added Hamilton. I may return to that issue later.
Minister after Minister of the present Government who were at that time Front Bench spokesmen led a campaign


against the closure of any colleges of education. Now they have turned on their heads, and without any changes in the circumstances they are now putting forward these proposals. The Minister may laugh, but as yet he has not produced one argument that is different from that which was put forward in 1977.

Mr. Foulkes: He has produced even less.

Mr. Maxton: As my hon. Friend says, the Minister has produced less, and that is so.
That leads me to my next point on this issue. Few of us have had the opportunity to discuss matters with the Minister and to find out what his arguments are. At least on the last occasion in 1977 they were put forward very clearly as proposals for discussion and consultation. But not so this time. They were put forward after clear promises from the Minister that consultation would take place. They were put forward as decisions upon which the only consultation would be on how it should be done and not on whether it should be done.
In 1977 my right hon. Friend the Member for Craigton and his advisers repeatedly met those of us who were suggesting that their proposals were wrong. We put the argument to him and to them, and he put the arguments to us. A compromise was reached that was acceptable to the Government and to the lecturers and staff of the colleges. It was done because we were able to argue the case and to put it forward when we had a Minister and a Secretary of State who were prepared to listen to arguments and, when the Secretary of State felt that the arguments were sufficiently strong, to accept them.
That has not been the case this time. It has been extremely difficult for anyone to get meetings with the Minister about this matter. It has been very difficult to get anyone, even ministerial advisers, to talk about the decision—not about how it should be done—and to hear what the arguments are. That shows the complete lack of faith on the Government's part, because they said that there would be consultation. It also shows that they are treating people in Scotland with contempt, because they are not prepared to listen to arguments against their case.
What are the issues? My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth has put them very clearly for Calendar Park, which one would expect, because it is in his constituency. Any of us who knew the arguments last time will know what a tremendous fight he put up within the Government for Calendar Park and the other colleges then. It is all right for Conservative Members to suggest that he did not put up that fight, but I know that he did so and that it was his efforts that played a large part in ensuring that the college was not closed on that occasion.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Is the hon. Gentleman confirming that the Labour Party, either in Government or in Opposition, rejects the doctrine of collective responsibility?

Mr. Maxton: I was not suggesting in any way that my hon. Friend acted outwith collective responsibility. He acted rightly within the Scottish Office, arguing the case within the ministerial team to get his point of view across, and he succeeded in doing so. I was grateful to him at the time. I think that he did a tremendous job in doing that.
Although I had the broader experience in terms of the lecturers' association, my own experince was in Hamilton

college of education. In 1977 there was no threat to that college. No one was suggesting that Hamilton college should close. I worked in Hamilton college of education. Some of my ex-colleagues, when I meet them now, say "I wish that you had not won last time because if you had not won then and Craigie had closed we would not now be in this position". But that is not the point. The point is that none of the colleges should be closed.
Hamilton college of education was placed in Lanarkshire for the specific purpose of solving education problems in an area of multiple deprivation. It had the highest pupil-teacher ratio in the country. It had a greater shortage of teachers than anywhere else in Scotland. It was placed there for the specific purpose of trying to solve those problems. To a large extent it has solved many of the problems. There is not the same shortage of teachers as there was when the college was established. It moved into the training of secondary teachers as well. If my memory serves me rightly, that was in 1973–74. It did a very good job in ensuring that in the teacher shortage subjects, such as mathematics, physics and the other science subjects, there was a better supply—although still not an adequate supply— of teachers in Lanarkshire schools.
When the immediate teacher shortage problem was solved, Hamilton college of education began to move towards a greater provision on in-service training in the Lanarkshire area, something that few would argue was unnecessary. Some of the backwoodsmen, teachers from Oban and such places, might argue that in-service training is a frill and is unnecessary, and that it is something that has been introduced to try to solve the problem with colleges of education. Far from it. Once we have solved the immediate problem of teacher shortage, the next necessary job is to ensure that in a world that is changing rapidly, in which the knowledge, skills and methods of teachers need to be kept up to date, we move into more in-service training.
Hamilton college, among all the colleges of education in Scotland, moved further into in-service training than any of the colleges of education in Scotland. At present about 25 out of the lecturing staff of about 60 are involved in in-service training. That is a higher proportion than anywhere else.
Yet the Minister is proposing that the work on in-service training and in providing secondary teachers and primary teachers that will still be required in Lanarkshire should be cut off. Perhaps I should apologise, because that is being a little too severe on the Minister. What he is suggesting is that the in-service element may be maintained, and that the course, which was totally different from any other course in Scotland, at Hamilton college of education, should be maintained.
As my hon. Friend has said, slowly the Minister has moved towards a situation in which it appears that everything that Hamilton college is doing now will be maintained, but instead of its being done from Hamilton college of education, it will be done from Jordanhill college of education. It may be that Hamilton college of education will become an outpost of Jordanhill college. If that is so, what will be the savings and where will they come from? I do not think that even the Minister is arguing for the closure of these colleges on educational grounds. About the only ground that he has left is that of cost.
The Minister may have shaken his head when my hon. Friend suggested that 75 per cent. or more of the staff


would be saved, but lecturers in Hamilton college think that about 45 of the present staff will be retained on the staff at Jordanhill college when the transfer is made. That is the figure that the Minister's advisers are suggesting when they consider the merging of the two colleges at a later date—over 75 per cent. of the lecturing staff of Hamilton college of further education.
If the Government intend to retain that number of staff and to maintain a base or headquarters in Hamilton, the staff will require more than a couple of rooms in which to have a cup of tea to carry out in-service work for the Hamilton and Lanarkshire schools. The lecturers will require almost all the paraphernalia of a college to do their work. They will need back-up staff—secretarial and technical staff to run off materials and produce documents. They will require a library from which to obtain books.
In other words, there will have to be a college. That college must be maintained to do the job that it is doing at present and which, as the Minister says, has to be done. All these services must be maintained, because if they are not the costs will be greater. Twenty-five or 30 lecturers doing in-service work in Lanarkshire will require staff every time they want something run off or need a book. They will have to go from Lanarkshire to Jordanhill to pick up a book and take it to the school. Some of the schools are 30 to 40 miles south of Hamilton college of education. They are not in the immediate area of Hamilton, as the Minister appears to think.
Hamilton college of education covers the whole of Lanarkshire. Anyone who drives down the M74 or the A74 will realise that it goes well past Abington. Lecturers will have to do that sort of travelling, and that will involve extra cost. Either the educational development in Lanarkshire will be seriously eroded by the closure of Hamilton college of education, or, if it is not to be eroded and the present in-service and pre-service training in Lanarkshire and the provision of teachers are to be maintained, its closure will not save money, but will cost the Government money.
If there is an argument for cutting back on pre-service training in education, there is no argument for closing post-school educational establishments. Numbers in the age range 16 to 19 years are still increasing, and will continue do so over the next few years. We are coming into the bulge. There is a need for skilled staff and the maintenance of buildings and equipment to ensure that those youngsters, and not just those who wish to become teachers, receive adequate education and that more people receive a better education after they leave school.
If the Minister cannot see his way to maintaining the colleges entirely for teacher training, there is a case for using them for other purposes. When the teacher training needs return, the flexibility will be there to use those buildings again for that purpose. What is required is imagination and flexibility. Unfortunately, the Minister has neither.

Mr. Foulkes: You have called me to speak, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because no Conservative Member dares to rise. The hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) dare not rise to defend his Minister. He has defended him on some occasions. Perhaps he is disappointed because he has received no favours as a result. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart) has just returned to the

Chamber. He was not here in time to rise to protect the interests of his constituents who, if we did not have this Government, would normally go to Hamilton college of education. He is prepared to scurry around in private meetings muttering his general support, saying how sorry he is that the Government are having to do this to try to get inflation under control. Let us see how inflation comes under control with the pound the way that it is.
It is all right for the Renfrewshire, East crawler—I was going to say "ripper" but "crawler" is a more appropriate aphorism—privately to mutter his support and to show all those bleeding hearts to his constituents—

Mr. Norman Hogg: And on Radio Clyde.

Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is correct. However, when it comes down to it, not only is the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East not prepared to vote against the Government and to put his mouth here where his mouth is outside, but he will not express any sort of criticism. Perhaps I am wrong, and he will rise at some later witching hour to tell us his real inner feelings.
That was just an introduction. I am sorry that the debate is taking place. I do not think that we should be meeting in Westminster to discuss the closing of these colleges. That is no disrespect to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the area you represent, but if we were now meeting in Edinburgh—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. Before the hon. Gentleman reaches his second introduction, will he return to discussing the new clause?

Mr. Foulkes: I thought that I was there.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): The hon. Gentleman does not know where he is. I wish that he were in Edinburgh.

Mr. Foulkes: The Minister says that he wishes that I were in Edinburgh. So do I. If we had a Labour-controlled Assembly—as we should have had—we should not be discussing the new clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) spoke about the change of view of Ministers, particularly of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), who was vociferous in his opposition to the closure of colleges throughout the country. I was on a platform with him. Cardinal Gordon Gray was there, as were thousands of protestors about the closure of Craiglockhart. The hon. Member made the most passionate case that I have heard for retaining Craiglockhart. I freely confess my inability then to express the case as well as did the hon. Member for Pentlands. He made an excellent argument.
It has been known for hon. Members to change their minds in the House. It has been known for hon. Members in Opposition to say one thing and in Government to have to accept the responsibilities of office. We would almost understand that if the process now taking place were the same as it was then. It could be said that it was just the result of the pressure of office.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) is paying close attention to the debate. He will perhaps remind the House that at the time that the hon. Member for Pentlands was stomping the country and attacking the Labour Government's proposals, they had been set out in a consultation


document as basis for consultation. Even then the hon. Gentleman was able to be very vitriolic towards my right hon. Friend. He poured scorn on him for daring to consult on the proposals, even daring to suggest that the previous Government might have considered rationalising the pre-training.

5 pm

Mr. Maxton: Not only were present Ministers then attacking the proposal, but they were attacking my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) for failing to give a long enough period of consultation.

Mr. Foulkes: That makes the point even more strongly.
On this occasion there was no period for consultation. The decision was presented to the colleges as a fait accompli, a matter on which there was no opportunity for discussion. That is why the procedure is having to be changed. That is why the Minister is now having to say "It is a bit too quick to close in the coming academic session. We shall have to make hotchpotch arrangements to try to keep things going for another 12 months." That is exactly what he is doing, thus making matters even worse for the period in question, because he had not thought the matter out properly.
There is great potential for the colleges to improve the quality of education. The Minister wrote letters to me, came to meetings and attacked me, when I was chairman of the Lothian region education committee, because he said that in some of our schools the quality of education was not of the standard that he desired. We could improve the quality of education and provide more specialist and visiting teachers and much more support for the existing teachers, by using the colleges sensibly.
We also now hear trotted out by the hon. Gentleman the suggestion that because pupil numbers are reducing at a certain rate teacher numbers should reduce at a similar rate. That is manifest nonsense, particularly in secondary education. It is not possible to reduce the number of teachers in a straight line proportional to the reduction in the number of pupils. When secondary schools take groups of pupils into particular subjects it does not matter whether there are 8, 10, 25 or 30 in the class. They still need the same number of teachers to teach them if the schools are to provide those subjects.
Is the Minister saying that our schools should reduce the range of subects and the quality of education, that they should say "There are no longer three languages available. Only two are available. The specialist subjects are not available any more, because we do not have the teachers."? I can tell the hon. Gentleman two subjects for which he does not have the teachers—mathematics and physics. What is he doing about the training of mathematics and physics teachers? What is he doing to encourage them?
This is a financial exercise, pure and simple. The Secretary of Slate has been instructed to try to find some money by closing down institutions, abolishing quangos and doing what he can in every corner of the Department and the service. The Scottish Education Department and others in the Scottish Office have been asked to come up with a rationalisation, by finding an educational justification. It is a rationalisation, because there is no

educational justification. There is no justification for the vandalism upon which the Minister and the Government are engaged.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said, the Government lack imagination. The colleges make imaginative proposals for diversification. We should think of the colleges, not as monotechnics for the pre-service training of teachers, but as polytechnics for the provision of education over a whole range of opportunities for young people, particularly those in the 16 to 19 age range.
The colleges are valuable education resources. Instead of their being used in the way that I suggest, the Manpower Services Commission and some ad hoc authorities are cobbling together courses in huts, allegedly to educate and train some of our young people, when we have those huge, valuable, prestigious, well-equipped educational resources, which, with a bit of imagination, could be used instead.
We shall need our young people. If the Government believe what they say, if they believe that there will be an upturn in the economy, that the recession is bottoming out, whatever that may mean, we shall need trained young people, trained in every skill, to be in the forefront, in the vanguard, of the improvement of our economy.
Where shall we provide the training? Will it be done in the huts that the MSC provides? Should we not be using the resources in the colleges as corporate, polytechnical educational resources, and still provide teacher training in them as well, because that kind of resource is complementary?
I know that the Minister finds it a great burden to deal with his responsibility for education. I know that he loves flitting around the factories and flying off to the United States and Japan or wherever, pretending to encourage investment in Scotland. But the education of our children is the most important matter. It is his most important responsibility, and he is neglecting it.
I have spoken to people from all the education unions and from pressure groups. They say that they find the hon. Gentleman to be a Minister who not only does not understand about education, but does not care about it. That is a great contrast with the position before the general election. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will soon prove me correct by his words.

Mr. Gavin Strang: Will the Minister make a statement about the talks that have been taking place on the future of Craiglockhart college? He has answered questions on the matter, and he should be aware of the deep concern in Edinburgh and the East of Scotland about the Government's attitude to the college's future.
I strongly believe that there is a need and a case for a continued Catholic teacher training college in the East of Scotland. We believe that the Government's approach is profoundly mistaken. I should like to think that even at this late stage the Minister will reconsider his position, particularly in the light of the talks.
I understand that the Government have had in mind two possible options: an arrangement with Moray House whereby Craiglockhart would perhaps move into Moray House—we are not certain what the Government have in mind—and a merger with Notre Dame. The talks have been going on for a long time. I guess that the Government are abandoning the idea of an accommodation with Moray House and that the future, as they see it, lies in the talks


with Notre Dame. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give some information about the talks and tell us the Government's objective.
I hope also that the hon. Gentleman will allay the concern that he and his Department have been bringing pressure on the colleges to reach an early and perhaps unsatisfactory arrangement. Our view is that no practical arrangement can be evolved that would contribute to the saving of costs or the improvement of educational standards.
I ask the Minister for a categoric assurance that he envisages that the college will continue to operate from its present grounds at Craiglockhart. That is very important.

Mr. James Dempsey: I should like to make one or two points about the closing of the Hamilton college of education.
Hamilton is situated in the county of Lanark. I am one of the Lanarkshire Members who represent an area that has sent a substantial number of young students to be trained as teachers at the college. It took many years of enterprise, initiative and effort to interest Governments in the possibility of a college within the county of Lanark. A magnificant building was, however, constructed with both teaching and residential accommodation that contributed towards an atmosphere for the successful training of teachers. It would be a retrograde step if the college were now to close. The simple truth is that it may be needed again. The college staff have proved that, apart from its existing use, additional services could be provided.
I have heard the Minister argue that only 12 miles separate Hamilton from the Jordanhill college of education and that that would not be a long distance to travel. The hon. Gentleman underestimates the position. I hope that he will note that many of the students attending the Hamilton college of education come from areas well outside Lanarkshire. Some come from South Scotland. They come from South Lanarkshire and South Ayrshire. Another 25 miles will be added to their journey if they have to travel to Jordanhill. It is an imposition on young people to require them to spend many hours travelling in order to be trained as teachers, especially when a magnificient modern college is already available in one of the most delightful parts of the county of Lanark. The Minister should take that factor into account and reconsider the decision.
I do not know whether the Minister is aware that the birth rate is rising again. In a few years' time many more children will be attending school. We shall need more teachers, including many of the teachers now being lost through redundancy or early retirement. We shall be back to the old system of knocking on doors to try to persuade teachers to return to teach for part of the day.
A serious unemployment problem exists in Lanarkshire. In my constituency unemployment amounts to over 20 per cent. of the working population. Young people are therefore staying on at school. They are taking additional courses leading to teaching certification. These factors of a rising birth rate and young people staying on at school should be taken into account.
I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically at the points that have been made. I expect him to reconsider his whole attitude. If there is any doubt in his mind, his decision must be that the college should continue to exist.
Such a college in Lanarkshire, with its many urban communities, is an asset. It is prestigious. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider his attitude towards the closure.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I am very much in favour of the new clause. It would prohibit the Secretary of State for Scotland using regulations to close colleges of education. The hon. Gentleman has plans to close down Callendar Park and Hamilton colleges of education and to try to bring Craiglockhart college of education into a merger or—perhaps a better word—sub-merger. All these decisions are deplorable. Even worse, the Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary of State, who is present on the Front Bench, and indeed all Ministers, have failed to give any justification for the proposals. The decisions are not only deplorable, but completely unjustifiable.
The Secretary of State's logic and the logic of his Minister with responsibility for education, if there is any logic in his head, seems to be that what they claim to be a drop in the school population and falling school roles should automatically mean a fall in the number of teachers. This should therefore mean fewer students entering colleges and fewer lecturers in the colleges so that eventually certain courses at the colleges become non-viable or even the college itself becomes non-viable through the direct intervention of the Minister in placing quotas, which are far too low, on the student intake.
The Under-Secretary of State's logic appears unimaginative, to say the least. He is on record as saying that Scottish local authorities employ 6,500 teachers too many. If he is encouraging local authorities to sack or push into early retirement 6,500 teachers and to restrict further the number of students entering colleges of education, that suggests to me that the job is too much for him. The hon. Gentleman has not a clue about what is going on in Scottish education. He should get around the constituencies in Scotland and speak to the teachers, the parents and even the children themselves—those who really know about education and who are grossly dissatisfied with the Minister's record. The hon. Gentleman has been the most disastrous Minister in charge of education at the Scottish Office—and we have had some beauties in the past when the Tory Party has been in office.
I started teaching at the age of 19, in the days before the General Teaching Council. At that time students attending colleges and universities could get temporary teaching posts during the long summer vacation. I was grateful to the Fife education authority, and later to the Lothian—the old Edinburgh corporation—authority, for giving me a temporary job during university holidays. At that time teacher unemployment in Scotland was virtually unheard of.
If people had mentioned teacher unemployment, or the threat of teacher unemployment in Scotland, they would have been laughed out of court. That situation continued until I entered this place in 1974. There was still a shortage of teachers. Some of the parents of my pupils regretted my coming here because the pupils lost their teacher. Nevertheless, they still voted for me.
A completely different picture now emerges. We have been informed about the Secretary of State's alleged surplus of teachers. I maintain that this so-called surplus of teachers is not a surplus at all. We should be looking at ways and means of using those extra teachers, whether


or not they are already qualified or are training to become teachers in colleges of education. We should also be looking at areas of need in our schools. In plenty of areas extra teachers could be used. For example, the size of classes could be reduced, which in turn would improve the educational opportunities open to children.
The Minister said that there was virtually no evidence to show that a reduction in class size would mean an improvement in educational opportunity. I checked up on that. It is about time that he started to do his homework instead of reading out Civil Service briefs from people at St Andrew's House who have never in their lives stood in front of a class. It does not take much educational research to find out that if the numbers in a class are reduced, discipline becomes easier to enforce. In addition, communication between teacher and pupil, and vice versa, becomes easier. That means an improvement in a child's educational opportunity. An experienced teacher knows that detailed educational research is not needed to prove that.
If the Minister wants detailed educational research and statistics he should consult some of the research institutes in Scotland and look at some of the stuff that has been dug out by the colleges of education, whose very existence is being threatened. Many of the Opposition's points cannot be adequately answered. Therefore, when the Minister replies to the debate—if he bothers to—he will find that he has no answer to many of them. I suspect that he will sit on his seat and not even try to reply. We have heard all the rubbish about pupil-teacher ratios in primary and secondary schools being the best that they have ever been. That may be true—the Minister still seems to claim that—but it is nonsense for him complacently to say that the pupil-teacher ratio is therefore perfect. There is plenty of room for improvement.
Indeed, the pupil-teacher ratio is not always the best measure of a supply or shortage of teachers. Even at school level the pupil-teacher ratio is too much of a global statistic. If the number of pupils in a school is divided by the number of teachers in the school, the answer will not suggest anything about possible subject shortages. There is a shortage of teachers in my subject, mathematics. There is also a shortage of qualified teachers of physics and technical education. It is time that the Minister shook himself out of his complacency and faced his ministerial responsibilities. He should deal with those shortages by encouraging more young people to consider teaching as a career.
Many young people—even those who are seeking mathematics or physics qualifications—cannot see any point in going in for teaching, because the Minister has undermined the profession's morale so much that they no longer see teaching as a career that will allow them to use their talents in later life. It is not good enough for the Minister to sit back complacently. He has ministerial responsibility. By not facing that responsibility he is undermining the faith of young people in the Scottish educational system. Young people in their right senses would like to consider teaching as a career that leads to stable prospects, just as young people did 10 or 15 years ago.
In addition to improving areas of subject shortage, a lot could be done to improve the supply of teachers in certain areas. Special circumstances surround, for example, Callendar Park college. My constituency comes within its catchment area. The existence of that college is threatened

by the Government's proposals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) pointed out, the lull in the birth rate may be temporary. Up-to-date statistics show that the birth rate is beginning to increase again and that it is increasing faster in some areas than in others. In the Callendar Park area the growth in the number of residents is due not only to the birth rate, but to the incoming population. Therefore, it does not make sense to close a college that could make a useful contribution to better education for many of the children moving into the area and for many of those who are born to families already resident there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) mentioned the special circumstances surrounding Craiglockhart college of education. It is absolute hypocrisy for the Minister and his Front Bench colleagues to act in this way. Indeed, Craiglockhart college lies in the constituency of the Minister, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind). Both he and the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton)—who is not in the Chamber—went to rallies in Edinburgh about four years ago, when Craiglockhart college was threatened. They both made pulpit-type sermons about a Government who attacked Christian education. The Tories claimed that they were sticking up for great Christian principles. Now the hypocrites are going to close the place down. They have not publicly justified that decision.
It seems that the talks on a merger with Notre Dame college in the West of Scotland have broken down. If they have not, it is incumbent on the Minister to tell us that they are still going on. If the talks have broken down, he should tell us why. This issue should no longer be concealed behind a veil of secrecy. Far too much secrecy surrounds the decisions, proposals and consultations that the Government are supposed to be holding with others. It is about time that the Government, and in particular the Minister, came clean and told the House what was going on in the talks that are supposed to be taking place with both Craiglockhart's and Notre Dame's boards of governors.
Many students and former students of Craiglockhart college are proud to be associated with it. It may be smaller than average, but educational efficiency should never be judged simply by size. Many students would find it difficult to travel to the West of Scotland from some parts of the East of Scotland to attend Notre Dame instead of Craiglockhart. I hope that the Minister will reply to that point.
5.30 pm
Additional teachers would also be required if we took imaginative steps to extend the age range of pupils who are at present in full-time education. It may be arguable whether we should extend the statutory school leaving age from 16, although it is now some 10 years since it was raised to 16. There may be debate on both sides of the House about whether we should force children to stay on at school beyond the age of 16, but there should be no doubt on either side of the House that we ought to be encouraging young people to stay on at school beyond the statutory school leaving age especially in these days of high unemployment, particularly youth unemployment. If we had more imaginative courses for many of the 16 to l8-year-olds, I am sure that many of them would stay on


at school voluntarily. Of course, this would have to be combined with adequate maintenance allowances, but we shall come to that debate later in the evening.
The Minister shows a distinct lack of imagination in tolerating a situation in which literally thousands of young people roam the streets and hang around street corners instead of having the opportunity of full-time education and training. A more adequate supply of teachers is extremely relevant to the provision of that additional educational opportunity, of course.
Just as I advocate more youngsters staying on at school beyond the statutory school-leaving age, so I advocate giving the under-fives the opportunity of pre-school education. Many parents in my constituency would agree with me about that.
I notice that the Solicitor-General for Scotland is looking at my shoes. I do not know why, but I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman is quite used to putting his foot in it, and I am sure that he would like to put his foot against the rear ends of some of his Back Benchers simply because they support some of my reasonable amendments. The hon. and learned Gentleman has very little experience of the main stream of Scottish education, but I hope that he will listen to what I say, because he is a great stickler for law and order. Even in the interests of law and order, we should encourage more young people to go into full-time education and training rather than hang around and form themselves into gangs, where temptation may be put in their way. We all know that the devil finds work for idle hands.
The Solicitor-General for Scotland might find work prosecuting some of those young people, but I put it to him seriously that one of the reasons for the present rate of juvenile delinquency may be the intolerable level of youth unemployment. If we gave more young people opportunity and encouragement, through reasonable courses of full-time education, that would be all to the good, not just of the young people themselves, but of society in general.
Before the Solicitor-General for Scotland came into the Chamber I referred to pre-school education. I can vouch for the fact that many mothers and fathers in my constituency would welcome the opportunity of pre-school education for their children. Again, it is not simply a way of allowing mothers to go out to work. There is a great deal of evidence that educational deprivation can begin at an early age, even before a child goes to school. If we allowed many of these children, especially in areas of multiple deprivation, to go to pre-school education, either full-time or part-time, more teachers would be required, which in turn would mean more opportunities at the colleges of education for the training of teachers.
Another area that I have marked down is that of special education. Later on today we shall be considering a part of the Bill that deals with the Warnock report and the children and young people with special educational needs. Some of these young people were branded by Parliament as ineducable until as recently as 1974, when a private Member's Bill appeared, initially sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) and then taken up by one of the more enlightened Tory Members, the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray), who is now Minister of State, Department of Energy. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty is not in the

Department of Education in Scotland, because he would make a better job of it than the Minister who is doing the job at the moment.
The Bill sponsored by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty removed the terrible tag that was hung around the necks of these children for generations—that they were ineducable. Yet by removing that stigma, the Bill did not of itself improve the educational opportunities for these children. To this day many of the educational establishments—they are now called schools rather than occupational centres, as they used to be called—for profoundly mentally handicapped children do not have enough qualified teachers.
If the colleges of education were given more encouragement to devise suitable courses for these specialist teachers, and if young people with the proper aptitudes were given more encouragement to take that kind of course at a college of education, we could improve the educational lot of many of these children, who have been neglected in the past. The Minister is being completely unimaginative in talking about this alleged surplus of teachers.
I deal next with the in-service training of teachers. Colleges of education are not just places for training students to become good teachers. They are places for training existing qualified teachers to become better teachers. By closing down Callendar Park and Hamilton colleges of education the Minister will probably reduce the facilities for in-service training in those areas.
It is no use saying that people can go to Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee or Aberdeen. Many teachers have family responsibilities. They might be very keen to do in-service training, and they might have the time to do it in Callendar Park if that is their nearest college but, due to their family responsibilities, they would find it virtually impossible to trek to Glasgow or Edinburgh after a hard day's work at school and then come back to look after their families at home.
It is most unfair of the Minister to expect teachers to do that, and I know that many primary teachers in the Central region and in parts of Strathclyde and Lothian speak highly of the contribution that Callendar Park college of education has made to in-service training in that area.
The Minister has never replied satisfactorily to the argument about the need to diversify the role of the college of education. I spent one year a Moray House college of education, having done a degree course at Edinburgh university. In all honesty, I did not find that year at Moray House a particularly illuminating experience.
Part of the problem was that I had come from a university where I had mixed with people who were doing different courses. I had the opportunity to socialise, converse and play sports with people who were training to be engineers, doctors, veterinary surgeons, dentists and lawyers. Suddenly I was thrown into what at that time was a fairly large institution that concentrated almost entirely on the production of teachers. Even at that time, I thought that that was far too narrow a role for any institution of higher education.
I should like all colleges of education to be given the opportunity to diversify. Future teachers should be given the opportunity during their years of study to mix with people studying different disciplines, so that when they eventually graduate they are not simply victims of the syndrome of going through school, going straight to


colleges of education—particularly in the case of primary teachers—where they rub shoulders only with other future teachers, and then returning to school to teach.
That is a narrow educational experience. The Secretary of State should have a radical look at the role of all Scottish colleges of education, with a view to removing those restrictions. He should encourage the colleges to expand, diversify and initiate new courses, not just for the training of teachers, but for people going into the professions and into non-professional careers.
The last Government listened a little to my views, because they introduced the nurse training course at Callendar Park college of education. That was a small example of Callendar Park's diversification at that time, although I should have liked it to go further than having nurse training as an almost separate unit within the college. There is no reason why, eventually the same college could not cater for a diversity of courses for training nurses, teachers, technicians, engineers and business managers.
The Secretary of State and his minion on the Front Bench, the Under-Secretary, do not seem to have a clue about the real needs of Scottish education. Sadly, the Under-Secretary is also responsible for Scottish industry. He should know about the needs of Scottish industry and society, and the need to train people in science and technology. Yet he appears adamant about the proposals to cut down Scottish higher and further education, instead of considering whether a restructuring would meet present-day needs.
Callendar Park recently decided, at long last, to have discussions with the Minister about its future role. I emphasise that the people there have not yet accepted the inevitability of the college's complete closure as an education institution. Many of them agree totally with what I have been saying. Recently they produced a useful document that outlined the college's possible future role. It suggested that the college should not be confined to training teachers, but that it should have a wider role in education in the Central region and beyond.
The document was sent to the Under-Secretary of State, and I hope that he will comment helpfully on it. Has he read the document yet, or has he simply given it to some of his philistine advisers to throw in the waste-paper basket at New St. Andrew's House? If he has not read the document, why not? If he has read it, what does he think about it? What will he do about it? Will he simply watch while Callendar Park is destroyed, or will he at least listen to those who know more than he does about the college and wish to expand its role?
I do not believe that the Minister has ever visited the college—certainly he has not done so as a Minister. The way that he is seeking to bulldoze through his proposed closures is deplorable. There is no educational justification for them. The justification appears to be on financial grounds. Yet even on financial grounds the Minister has failed so far to produce any definite figures about the savings.
5.45 pm
We all understand that the Scottish Education Department, like virtually every other Government Department, is under extreme pressure from the monetarists in the Treasury and from the Prime Minister's office to try to cut its public expenditure programmes. Yet even the monetarists in the Treasury—like the

Opposition—are entitled to a straight answer to the straight question: exactly how much money will be saved as a result of these proposals? The evidence produced by some of the colleges shows that not one penny would be saved, at least in the early years, and that more public expenditure would be needed, not less.
I have a well-produced document from Callendar Park college. Presumably, the Minister has seen it. We know that he does not have time to read everthing that lands on his desk, but surely this document is worthy of comment. It contains the written evidence that was presented to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs earlier this year. It gives various tables of statistics about the estimated savings and additional expenditure, including the loss of employment or redundancy costs, the additional costs of in-service training, the additional pay service costs, loss of income through closure, and the structural and other costs of merger and closure distributed over three years.
The document concludes by saying:
The Government proposals for the closure of Callendar Park College of Education will therefore result in additional Government expenditure of £597,000 in the first year of closure. In subsequent years the additional cost will be £159,000 as shown by the above table."—
that is, table 4 on page 9. If the Scottish Education Department has an answer to that table and disputes the figures produced by Callendar Park college of education, surely the Minister should tell us what his figures are. So far, he has refused to give any financial justification.
Finally, just as there is no educational or financial justification, so there can be no moral justification for the Government's behaviour. It is one of the worst examples of industrial relations that I have seen in my life. That is why I believe that the new clause, which prohibits the Secretary of State from using the regulations in the 1980 Act to go ahead with the closures now, is essential.
I am not allowed to call the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), a dishonourable Member in this House, although I would call him that outside. Here, I must call him a hon. Member. About 18 months ago we had a meeting at Callendar Park college, with my hon. Friends the Members for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) and Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill), when a consultative document was promised before any firm decisions on closures or mergers were taken. That was followed in writing by a letter from the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North. Yet, despite that, he has gone back on his word.
The Minister is determined to go ahead with closures without adequate consultation. Not only was no consultation document produced, but there was no adequate consultation with the people most involved—the academic staff, the important and essential ancillary staff and the students—although I assume that the Secretary of State wants to transfer the students to other colleges.
The other Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Pentlands, and the Scottish Government Whip, spoke out against the closures four years ago. The Minister responsible for education and the Secretary of State himself were also in favour of the 10-college system. I cannot remember what stance the Minister responsible for health in Scotland took, but we do not hear much from him anyway. Certainly, three Scottish Office Ministers spoke out then in strong terms for the retention of the 10-college system for colleges of education in Scotland.
They were backed not only by Opposition Back Benchers, but by the then Leader of the Opposition, the present Prime Minister, who went on record in a television broadcast as being in favour of retaining the 10-college system. Since then they have gone back on their words. They have done a complete volte face. They have acted in a cowardly manner. Instead of coming to the House with statements, facing us and answering our questions, they have used the old trick of hiding behind written parliamentary questions planted by the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) or some other helpful stooge. We have been denied the opportunity to put more awkward or hostile questions to the Minister to challenge his decisions and to make him more accountable to Parliament.
The whole sorry saga is one of broken promises. It is a story of deceit, of people hiding from the truth, the facts and the evidence. Not one iota of justification has been given for the closures. The decision reflects badly on the Government's credibility, if they have any credibility left.
I am glad to see the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) in the Chamber. I nearly called him my hon. Friend. He always listens with respect to what I have to say, whether or not he agrees with me. People speak about the hon. Gentleman in glowing terms all over Scotland because of his courageous stance against the Government's proposal to put up petrol prices, his courageous stance in backing my Private Member's Bill to abolish warrant sales and his courageous stance in favour of the good people of Gibraltar.
I hope that other Government Back Benchers will follow the hon. Gentleman's courageous example. I am sure that his constituents now hold him in a higher regard than ever. Now is the time for people, whatever their party allegiance, to stand up against the Government and their ludicrous, unjustifiable proposal, because it is one of the worst acts of vandalism in the history of Scottish education.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I have no hesitation in responding to the appeal of the hon Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) to stand up against the Government on this occasion. However, at the risk of alienating hon. Members on both sides of the House, I must say that it is a characteristic of the adversarial nature of politics that on the Government Front Bench is the mirror image of the party which, when in Government, took a not dissimilar line.
Governments of both political persuasions have been confronted by a sharp decline in school rolls and substantially increased unit costs of education. An increasing proportion of expenditure relates to the building costs of under-used establishments. Both Labour and Conservative Governments have had to face that.

Mr. Norman Hogg: I take exception to the hon. Member's description of the Government as the mirror image of the Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman was a member of that Government. Why did he not make such points when he was a Minister? Why is he making them only now?

Mr. Maclennan: I was wrong to give way to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Hogg). If he had waited he would have realised that I was attacking not the Labour Government, but the attitude of Ministers who——

Mr. Norman Hogg: Suffer from obscurantism.

Mr. Maclennan: If the hon. Gentleman was not so silly and partisan he might benefit from some education.
Bitterness has occurred because those who now have responsibility for education in Scotland, when in Opposition took wholly irresponsible attitudes designed to whip up popular opinion against the proposals to which they are now committed. That is their problem. They have failed to convince those affected that the proposals are merited in terms of cost or educational necessity.
One is entitled to ask the Minister whether he really believes that fluctuations in school rolls should be accompanied by fluctuations in educational establishments that mirror the alterations in the rolls. If that is his view, I dissent from it. I believe that education must enjoy a greater stability. Facilities must be available when they are needed.

Mr. Canavan: Is the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) expressing the official policy of the Social Democratic Party? Shirley Williams, when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science, closed more colleges of education than any other Secretary of State in history.

Mr. Maclennan: Like the hon. Member for Stirlingshire, West (Mr. Canavan) I speak for myself. That is the person for whom one normally speaks in the House. It is difficult to detect any coherence or consistency in any of the Opposition speeches today. I do not blame the hon. Member if he does not always reflect the policy of the party to which he belongs. He certainly never did when his party was in Government and when Mrs. Shirley Williams was a distinguished Minister.
The Minister must go further in explaining the philosophy that underlies the Government's decision. It is plain that the decision on Callendar Park and Hamilton colleges of education is widely resented and believed to be unjustified. There is a question about the future of Craiglockhart, because of the silence over the discussions about its possible relationship with Notre Dame. The Minister displays some of the insolence of office in his approach to the issue. He shows an unwillingness to expose the thinking that led to the Government's decision.
6 pm
The need for stability in education is of great importance. Unless the Minister can bring forward further and better arguments, we must reach the conclusion that the considerations that dictated the decision have little to do with education and are essentially considerations that have been forced upon the Government by their financial and economic imperatives, which flow from their incompetence in managing the economy.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The timing of the debate will be of interest, not only to the House, but to the lecturers and others in Scotland who have campaigned against the closure of colleges. It is fully 10 months since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made his decision known to the House. During most of that time the Opposition have told the press, and let it be known generally, that they would lead a strong campaign in the House and institute debates on the issue. Yet now, on Report, is the first occasion that they have taken the trouble to institute a debate on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Minister aware that Thursday after Thursday the Opposition, having given up their time in the Scottish Grand Committee, have asked the Leader of the House for Government time to debate the issue? They are disgraceful Government proposals, but the Government have not volunteered any time to justify them. It demeans the Minister to make such a suggestion in his opening remarks.

Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman should look at press reports of the leaks that he and his colleages made. They contained suggestions that the Opposition would use a Supply day to raise the matter on the Floor of the House. My point is that they never did that.
It is interesting to note that the new clause has been presented on Report—10 months after my right hon. Friend made his decision—and when Opposition Members know that plans for the closure of two colleges and the merger of another two are well under way and proceeding satisfactorily. Not even in Committee, some months ago, did the Opposition seek to raise the point that they have now raised. That can only be because they realise that there is no possibility of a reversal of Government policy. They have left it too late—presumably deliberately—to achieve any such reversal. They are happy to trumpet on the Floor of the House without caring a hoot whether it will have any impact or influence, not only on Government policy, but on the procedures being adopted to bring about the closure of two colleges and the merger of another two.

Mr. Maclennan: The Minister said that the plans for the closure of two colleges and the merger of another two were proceeding satisfactorily. Who, other than the Government, regard the matter as satisfactory?

Mr. Fletcher: I shall come in a moment to the question of individual colleges and the arrangements being made.
The hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) went through the well-worn points about college closures. He presented his arguments on the constituency point of the closure of Callendar Park. I make no complaints about that. Because of the time that has elapsed, it is a pity that he did not introduce any new arguments or facts into the debate. The points that he and his hon. Friends raised have been answered by the Government and myself time and again at every opportunity—mainly by written answers, because there have been few oral questions about the matter during the past 10 months. I tried to answer the points raised, not least the financial points, when I appeared before the Select Committee and gave it a full account of the savings that would accrue to public expenditure as a result of the closure of two colleges and the merging of another two.
Reference has been made to the closure of Hamilton college. The governors were reluctant to accept my right hon. Friend's decision, as were the governors of Callendar Park, but the governors of both colleges are holding discussions with Jordanhill college in the case of Hamilton and with Moray House in the case of Callendar Park. The detailed considerations are proceeding satisfactorily. I say that from my knowledge of the discussions and because of the minutes of meetings and other papers that I have read, all of which confirm—although I do not deny reluctantly—that the college governors have accepted the need for them to act, in the best interests not only of the staff of Hamilton and Callendar Park colleges, but of the students. During the period of uncertainty when the

governors were considering my right hon. Friend's decision, the students were disturbed about their future training and about their careers as lecturers. Those points are being considered in great detail.
The fact that my right hon. Friend was able to announce a short time ago that those colleges would remain in being, albeit as part of Jordanhill and Moray House, for a further year has helped the discussions that have taken place and the plans for the future. Obviously, there will be no new intake at either Callendar Park or Hamilton during that time, but it gives a longer time for the adjustment to take place. Hamilton and Callendar Park colleges will close at the end of the 1981–82 college session, as has been announced by my right hon. Friend. The position of Craiglockhart and Notre Dame was raised by a number of hon. Members——

Mr. Harry Ewing: The Minister has not yet answered the important question about guarantees for the staff at the colleges. What guarantees have been given about the percentage of staff who will be given jobs at Jordanhill and Moray House?

Mr. Fletcher: There is no guarantee about jobs. It is a matter of working out the staff requirements at Jordanhill and Moray House during the transfer of students at the end of the 1981–82 session. I made some estimates in Committee about the probable effect of the closures on staff, and I projected the numbers that would accrue to Jordanhill and Moray House when Hamilton and Callendar Park were closed. The hon. Gentleman is incorrect in talking of specific guarantees about how many jobs will be available. A figure of guidance was estimated in Committee, but no firm guarantees could be given until we knew the number of students with whom we were dealing.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) and others referred to Notre Dame and Craiglockhart. I hope that an announcement on the talks will be made this week. I shall try to bring it forward if I can. The talks are reaching a satisfactory conclusion. Any suggestion from any source that that is not so is false.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that when the statement is made it will be an oral statement in the House so that hon. Members may ask questions and the Minister will be obliged to answer them? I trust that it will not be one of the hidden statements behind which, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) has said, the Minister has hidden in the past.

Mr. Fletcher: I refute the suggestion that I have been hiding behind anything on this or any other matter. I am rather too big to hide easily behind anything. The Bill's Third Reading will be debated tomorrow and I shall do my best to ensure that either my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland or I include in our speeches a reference to the conclusion of the talks between Notre Dame and Craiglockhart.

Mr. James Hamilton: How was the announcement of closures made?

Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman knows how the announcement was made. It was made by a written answer following a misunderstanding, to put it mildly—[Interruption.] If the House wishes me to be frank, it was not a misunderstanding on the part of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), but a display of huffiness.
One of the fascinating aspects of the debate is that the Opposition have constantly drawn a comparison between the campaign of 1977, which the then Conservative Opposition waged, and the campaign of last year and this year, in which the present Opposition have played a small part. The only relevant comparison is that we won in 1977 and we shall win on this occasion. In 1977 the Labour Government were obliged to withdraw their proposals on college closures. We have not been obliged to withdraw. On both occasions we did our homework properly. We marshalled the facts properly and presented them properly to the country and the House. It is all very well for Labour Members to bemoan the two campaigns and to feel cheated. The cry of "foul" is heard in any game when someone constantly falls on his face. The Opposition have not been fouled, but they have fallen on their faces on two occasions.

Mr. Maxton: The Minister can claim that he is winning only because the previous Labour Government would listen and this Government will not.

Mr. Fletcher: I shall let the hon. Gentleman have his little point. However, he cannot deny the facts that I have put before the House.

Mr. Maxton: What facts?

Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman told us at some length that he enjoyed a privileged position in 1970 and was able to witness the success of the Conservative campaign. During 1980 and 1981 the hon. Gentleman has enjoyed a privileged position as an hon. Member and he has been able to witness again the success of the Conservative campaign and the way in which we have dealt with these issues.
6.15 pm
I am indebted to the hon. Members for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) and Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennen) for reminding the House of the number of training colleges that were closed when the previous Labour Government were in office, not by the Scottish Office, but by Mrs. Shirley Williams when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science. She closed quite a few and was seemingly content with having done so. Several of the colleges that she closed were very large. So much for the record of the previous Government, and so much also for the friends that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland now finds so comforting and satisfying.
The hon. Members for West Stirlingshire and for Caithness and Sutherland asked me to express some logic in the argument and suggested that the Government's case was lacking in logic. I have been asked to describe the purpose of the colleges. Clearly, their purpose is to train teachers in numbers that are appropriate to the demand for teachers. Labour Members suggest that their purpose is to provide employment within the colleges. That is the substance of their argument. It seems that they are concerned about providing employment in colleges, and they make no reference to the demand for teachers. They cannot have failed to notice reports in the Scottish press during the past few days that graduates are leaving the teacher training colleges and finding that local authorities are unable to employ them because the demand for teachers has lessened considerably.

Mr. Foulkes: rose—

Mr. Fletcher: Not one local authority in Scotland has come to my door or to the door of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to demand more money to enable it to employ more teachers. Teachers are faced with the prospect of the dole. Not even the Lothian region has come to my right hon. Friend or myself to say "If we had more money, we would employ more teachers". Indeed, it is dismissing teachers.

Mr. Foulkes: rose—

Mr. Fletcher: That is because, unfortunately, too many teachers are currently in employment and too many graduates are leaving the training colleges. That is why the logic of the argument that I have presented is correct.

Mr. Foulkes: rose—

Mr. Maxton: rose—

Mr. Fletcher: I give way to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton).

Mr. Maxton: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way at long last. He has made the same mistake throughout. He refers not to colleges of education, but to teacher training colleges. He says that their purpose is solely to train teachers. He is mistaken. Their purpose is to educate teachers, and that includes teachers who are receiving in-service training.

Mr. Fletcher: I am not sure that an opinion poll of teachers in Scotland would reflect the hon. Gentleman's views. However, I leave him in his own happy little world. The principal function of a teacher training college is to train teachers, and when the demand for teachers collapses—it is no exaggeration to say that over the past few years the demand for teachers in Scotland has collapsed—it is irresponsible to continue to train people for a profession that is unable to employ them. The Government are taking a responsible attitude.
I have referred on several occasions to the figures that prove the extent to which the demand for teachers has collapsed in Scotland. They are well rehearsed. In the early 1970s the colleges of education provided pre-service training for about 12,700 student teachers each year. There are now 4,892 students being trained. By 1983–84 the number is expected to fall to about 4,500. How can anyone with any logic, any sense of the facts and with any mathematical knowledge argue that we should continue with 10 colleges with a capacity of nearly 13,000 students when we require only 4,500 students? As I have argued before, it is not a matter of public expenditure, but a matter of good sense in the interests of students for teacher training.

Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister explain the difference between the figures that he has just given and those that he said were wrong in 1977? His projections are the same as those put forward by my right hon. Friend in 1977, which the hon. Gentleman attacked so vigorously. What is so different now?

Mr. Fletcher: That question is surprising. I have already told the hon. Member the difference between the campaign in 1977 and that in 1981. We led both campaigns and won them. We marshalled our facts and presented them properly and correctly to the people.
The question of pupil-teacher ratios was raised by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire. He said that they


were not perfect, with which I entirely agree. However, they are the best ever and that is some achievement. Despite the attacks on the Government's public expenditure policy by Opposition Members, pupil-teacher ratios are still improving. The allowance in the rate support grant will allow the improvement to continue over the next few years. [Interruption.]
The right hon. Member for Craigton is muttering, as he often does during these debates. He will know that it is only a marginal improvement in the RSG, but it is still significant and important at this time.
With regard to the shortage of mathematics and physics teachers, I can tell the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire and others who are interested in the matter that there is no restriction on the intake of our teacher training colleges. Although we say that the intake in total must be at a certain level, the exception is that in any collegethat can attract more students to study shortage subjects the intake is under no limit.

Mr. Canavan: It is over the quota.

Mr. Fletcher: We are delighted to accept as many students as we can find until we can catch up on the present shortages in mathematics and physics.
Opposition Members might consider the following problems. Recently I saw some information at the Department that more Scottish secondary school teachers graduated in mathematics, having taken it as a degree subject, than in any other subject. However, not all of them are teaching mathematics. If we were allowed to provide an incentive that recognised shortage subjects and to pay a premium for teachers to retain or switch subjects to mathematics of physics, that would be a big step forward in overcoming the problems.
However, as I have said to teachers' unions and to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, everyone is hemmed in by the practice that, regardless of subject, all teachers are paid the same. I do not wish to see differentials by subject, but if teachers, local authorities and the Government are concerned about shortages in those critical subjects for the future—because nothing is more important for employment prospects in Scotland—sufficient numbers of people should be trained in mathematics, physics and such technical subjects. If the will is there among local authorities and teachers, a move might have to be made in the direction that I suggest so that we make sure that current shortage subjects are no longer such in Scottish schools.
No new arguments or facts have been presented by the Opposition, because they have nothing new to say on the subject. I stongly recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject the new clause.

Mr. Harry Ewing: With the permission of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
The Minister's reply is probably one of the most insulting that has ever been given to the House of Commons. It is an insult to the House of Commons, to Callendar Park college of education, to students, parents, teachers and everyone concerned, to Hamilton college of education and Craiglockhart college of education. The Minister is a disgrace to his office. He should be ashamed that he has the temerity to come to the House ill-prepared and to insult it in the way that he has done. His capacity

for twisting the truth is almost unbelievable. He is devious to the nth degree and deserves the condemnation of all who have heard his disgraceful speech.
That speech did not surprise me. Throughout the debate the Minister was not passed a single note from those who are here to serve him. I suspect that that is for one or two reasons. Either he has instructed his civil servants not to pass him notes, or they have decided not to pass him notes because they know that he cannot comprehend them.
The Minister said that no new arguments had been put forward. We are still waiting for answers to the arguments that we have been putting forward since 6 August 1980. If we were to argue the case until doomsday, it looks as if the Minister would still be prepared to come to the House and insult us with inadequate replies such as we have heard today.
The Minister sought to twist the truth, in his usual devious manner. He said that the Opposition had made no effort to raise the matter in the House. He accused us of not using one of our Supply days. For the record I intervened to tell him of some of the action chat the Opposition had taken in the House, because I do not regard the Minister as being so important that I should defend the Opposition against him—far from it. In years to come, people will read the debate. I intend to clear the good name of the Scottish Labour parliamentary group on the record.

Mr. John MacKay (Argyll): What good name?

Mr. Ewing: The hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) should return to the Liberal Party whence he came.
The Scottish parliamentary Labour group raised the matter in our time in the Scottish Grand Committee. That group forced a vote in the Committee. The Minister did not have the guts to vote for his own proposals. He has shown himself to be the weakling that he was when we had that debate. He wriggles, twists and turns at every opportunity to defend the somersault that he has made since 1977.
The Opposition sought to raise the matter on the Consolidated Fund debate. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and I had to go to the Government Chief Whip to seek to persuade him not to move the closure before the colleges of education debate was reached at 9 o'clock the following morning. The Minister knows well—he is not getting away with this—that he was trying to persuade the Government Chief Whip to move the closure before the debate on the colleges could be reached because, again, he did not have the guts to answer the questions that were being asked. We are still waiting for answers, and will wait for ever, because we are faced with a totally inadequate Minister.
It was the Opposition, in the person of my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who persuaded the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs to consider the Government's attitude towards the colleges of education. It is now written knowledge that the Minister's response to that Committee was quite inadequate. What have the Government done? They have not taken a single step that can be written into the record to bring before the House of Commons so that they could defend their decision.
Thinking that my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) was out of earshot, the Minister mentioned the fiasco of 6 August last year, when a planted question was answered at 5.30 pm.
The Minister knows what happened. He distorted the truth in his statement from the Dispatch Box. He knows that a junior civil servant at the Scottish Office telephoned my right hon. Friend the Member for Craigton at 9 am and asked whether he knew that the Secretary of State could not answer a question out of sequence. The right hon. Gentleman could have answered the question had he wanted to.
The Minister's press secretary announced to the media that a written answer would be available at 3 pm, but it was not available until 5.30 pm. The Minister knew the deadline and wished to avoid the Scottish media so that the answer would not be examined. Time and again the Scottish Office has acted deviously. We have had to drag the Minister screaming to the Dispatch Box today to tell us his policy on the colleges.
6.30 pm
The Opposition are not prepared to accept the Minister's disgracefully low level of conduct as a standard to be aimed at in politics. The Minister sets the lowest possible standard. No one should aim to swim in the murky and muddy waters in which he has swum during the past 10 months. I advise those hon. Members on the Government Benches who joined the House at the last election, for goodness' sake, not to follow his example. They should aim higher. I have never seen the people of Scotland treated more disgracefully. It is little wonder that the Government did not give time to debate the matter. Although the Minister has been under constant examination this afternoon, he has failed to respond to the searching questions. I am sorry that the Secretary of State was not here to listen to the most irresponsible statement that has ever been made by a Scottish Minister, but I am glad that he is here now. I did not see him slip in.
Callendar Park and Hamilton believe that a certain percentage of staff are guaranteed positions under the reorganisation. However, the Minister today says that no guarantees have been given, so the negotiations are proceeding under a misunderstanding. My strong advice to Callendar Park and Hamilton is to break off the negotiations to force the Minister to justify what he said today.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman would like to see the negotiations broken off.

Mr. Ewing: I should not like to see the negotiations broken off, but it would be a welcome change to see the Minister honouring his word for once. The Secretary of State is giving the Minister advice, although it will not be good advice. If the negotiations are broken off it will not be because of my appeal, but because of the Minister's dishonesty and dishonest approach to the whole question of the colleges.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. The hon. Gentleman has been allowed considerable latitude in his remarks, but he should withdraw his last remark.

Mr. Ewing: Although I should not say in the House that the Minister is dishonest, when the opportunity arises outside I shall say so. I withdraw my remark without qualification or reservation.
The Minister says that no regional education authority has knocked on his door to ask for more money to employ

teachers, but if they do, will he give them any? I shall give way if he wishes to answer. That is yet one more example of his devious approach. He condemns the authorities for not asking for more money, but he will not say whether he would give it. It is a disgrace. Built into last year's rate support grant settlement at page 12 of the discussion paper is a provision to pay off 6,200 teachers.
This has been an interesting debate. Only hon. Members on the Opposition Benches have taken part. Not one Conservative Member has regarded the matter as of sufficient importance to his constituents, students, parents, to the issue of Catholic education and all the other aspects of the matter, to participate. Although the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), who used to be a boxer, has given left and right hooks as a Government Whip to ensure that Government Back Benchers did not speak, it should not inhibit them from representing the interests of their constituents. I note that the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) is anxious to rush to the Lobby to vote for the closures. If Conservative Members vote against the new clause without having participated in the debate, I hope that their constituents who read the debate will exercise their judgment when they have the opportunity.
If the Government go ahead with the closures, Callendar Park and Hamilton should invite the Minister personally to close the gates and put the finishing touches to one of the worst pieces of dirty work that the House has seen.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 111, Noes 154.

Division No. 208]
[6.35 pm


AYES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Faulds, Andrew


Beith, A. J.
Flannery, Martin


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Foulkes, George


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Freud, Clement


Bottomley, Rt Hon A. (M'b'ro)
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Haynes, Frank


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Buchan, Norman
Hooley, Frank


Campbell, Ian
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Canavan, Dennis
John, Brynmor


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Coleman, Donald
Kerr, Russell


Cook, Robin F.
Lambie, David


Cowans, Harry
Leadbitter, Ted


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Leighton, Ronald


Craigen, J. M.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Crowther, J. S.
McCartney, Hugh


Cryer, Bob
McElhone, Frank


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Dalyell, Tam
McKelvey, William


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Deakins, Eric
Maclennan, Robert


Dempsey, James
McTaggart, Robert


Dewar, Donald
Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)


Dobson, Frank
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Dormand, Jack
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Douglas, Dick
Maxton, John


Dunn, James A.
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Eadie, Alex
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Eastham, Ken
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


English, Michael
Morton, George


Evans, John (Newton)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Ewing, Harry
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon






O'Neill, Martin
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stott, Roger


Penhaligon, David
Strang, Gavin


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Prescott, John
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


Radice, Giles
Wainwright, H. (Colne V)


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)


Robertson, George
Watkins, David


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Welsh, Michael


Rooker, J. W.
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Whitehead, Phillip


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Whitlock, William


Sandelson, Neville
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)


Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Silverman, Julius
Winnick, David


Skinner, Dennis



Snape, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Soley, Clive
Mr. James Hamilton and


Spearing, Nigel
Mr. Joe Dean.


Steel, Rt Hon David





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Henderson, Barry


Ancram, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hordern, Peter


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Biggs-Davison, John
Jessel, Toby


Blackburn, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Braine, Sir Bernard
Knight, Mrs Jill


Brooke, Hon Peter
Knox, David


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Lang, Ian


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Lee, John


Budgen, Nick
Le Merchant, Spencer


Bulmer, Esmond
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Butcher, John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Loveridge, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lyell, Nicholas


Chapman, Sydney
Macfarlane, Neil


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Cockeram, Eric
Madel, David


Colvin, Michael
Major, John


Cope, John
Marlow, Tony


Cranborne, Viscount
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Mates, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Mawby, Ray


Dover, Denshore
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Durant, Tony
Mellor, David


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Miscampbell, Norman


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Moate, Roger


Fell, Anthony
Monro, Hector


Fanner, Mrs Peggy
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Murphy, Christopher


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Needham, Richard


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Nelson, Anthony


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Normanton, Tom


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Onslow, Cranley


Goodhart, Philip
Osborn, John


Goodhew, Victor
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Goodlad, Alastair
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Gow, Ian
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Greenway, Harry
Percival, Sir Ian


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Grist, Ian
Proctor, K. Harvey


Gummer, John Selwyn
Raison, Timothy


Hamilton, Hon A.
Rathbone, Tim


Hampson, Dr Keith
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Hannam, John
Rhodes James, Robert


Haselhurst, Alan
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hawksley, Warren
Ridsdale, Sir Julian





Rifkind, Malcolm
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Rost, Peter
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Scott, Nicholas
Viggers, Peter


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Waddington, David


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Wakeham, John


Silvester, Fred
Walker, B. (Perth)


Sims, Roger
Wall, Patrick


Skeet, T. H. H.
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Warren, Kenneth


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wells, Bowen


Sproat, Iain
Wheeler, John


Squire, Robin
Wickenden, Keith


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wolfson, Mark


Stevens, Martin
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stradling Thomas, J.



Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Tebbit, Norman
Mr. Donald Thompson and


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. Tony Newton

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 2

PROCEDURE FOR DISMISSAL OF TEACHERS

'Section 88 of the principal Act (dismissal of teachers) shall cease to have effect.'.— [Mr. Allan Stewart.]
Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 113, in schedule 9, page 73, line 38, at end insert 'Section 88'.

Mr. Stewart: Amendment No. 113 is purely technical and consequential.
Although the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 was passed only last year, it was a consolidation measure. The history of section 88 goes back to the so-called Mundella Act of 1882. However, the general secretary of the SSTA, Mr. James Docherty, has circulated hon. Members with an interesting letter that sets out the history, which was also set out in an article by Mr. Docherty in The Scotsman. Therefore, I hope that I shall be absolved from an excessively long historical treatise.
Section 88 requires that the resolution of an education authority for the dismissal of a registered teacher shall not be valid unless three conditions are met: first, that written notice should be given to the teacher and members of the authority three weeks before the appropriate meeting, secondly, that at least half the members of that authority should be present at that meeting and thirdly, that two-thirds of those present should agree to the resolution of dismissal.
The effect of new clause 2 would be that Scottish teachers in the public and grant-aided sector would be protected against arbitrary dismissal, not by a statutory right, but, rather, by two distinct sources: first, national legislation under the Employment Protection Act, and, secondly, such contractual rights relevant to dismissal procedures as have been negotiated or might be negotiated in future.
That would place Scottish teachers in the public sector in a legal position precisely comparable with those groups with which they are most easily compared—Scottish teachers in the private sector, teachers in England and


other local authority employees in Scotland, including those who are normally described as members of professions, such as lawyers and architects.
In Committee, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, in its general submission to Members, included a recommendation that section 88 be repealed. In its recommendation COSLA said:
This section extends to teachers protection from dismissal which, in the view of the Convention, is no longer necessary, having regard to the development of national regulations covering their protection of employment.
The Educational Institute of Scotland, in a letter to Committee Members dated 4 March, strongly objected to that proposal and, in fact, such a proposal was not tabled.
I have been asked why I did not table such a proposal in Committee. I believe that nearly all the amendments put forward by the COSLA were tabled by the Opposition either for discussion or for a vote. It was too late when I realised that the proposal to which I have referred would not be debated. A fairly unusual and highly undesirable state of affairs resulted, namely, that a major point in relation to the Bill on which there had been considerable press comment had been put forward by a representative, although Labour-controlled, organisation but it would not be discussed unless someone tabled a relevant new clause on Report.

Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman admit that COSLA subsequently made it clear that it did not wish to proceed with this proposal and that was why we did not proceed with the matter in Committee?

Mr. Stewart: I am sorry to engage in dispute with the hon. Gentleman at this early stage, but I met the chairman of the COSLA education committee on Friday night and he confirmed that that is still the view of the convention. It accepted the fact that the Opposition did not table a new clause in Committee.
However, that is not my only reason for tabling the new clause. Although the issues raised by section 88 were not discussed directly in Committee, they were referred to in an important Front-Bench speech, delivered with the reasonableness, moderation and logic that the House has come to associate with the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). He said:
Indeed, as well as a more democratic system of selecting head teachers, I am in favour of re-selection—or even de-selection. I feel that there should be a fixed-term contract of, say, five years, like the maximum term for an MP between elections. If they measure up to the job, they can be reappointed; if not, they should be sacked and replaced.

Mr. Henderson: Does my hon. Friend recall that a sentence later the hon. Gentleman said that he would return to this question on Report?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is quite right. The hon. Gentleman continued:
I hope to return to the issue on Report.
It is fair to say that among the many amendments tabled on Report there is not one from the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire relating to this issue. It is therefore with great pleasure that I have been able to assist him by tabling new clause 2, which will enable the hon. Gentleman to make his points.

Mr. Canavan: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise the difference between a fixed-term contract for head teachers

and what he is proposing, which will make it easier for education authorities to dismiss all teachers, irrespective of whether they are classroom teachers, promoted teachers, or whatever?

Mr. Stewart: Of course there is a difference between what the hon. Gentleman suggested and the provisions of new clause 2. But, as I shall argue later, the hon. Gentleman's view is incompatible with the spirit and content of section 88.
In reply to the contribution of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said that
the matter he raised … is something that I consider important, not only in education but throughout local government … Whether an opportunity will arise on Report for some of these ideas to be reconsidered I do not know, but they are certainly matters of great interest" .—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 14 April 1981; c. 908–10.]
That is the second reason why I have tabled new clause 2, because during our proceedings in Committee there were references to related topics.
My third reason for doing so is a general rise in concern about competence in Scottish schools. Let me say immediately that there is an open question whether the repeal of section 88 would help to deal with incompetent teachers. However, the concern is certainly widespread. I should like to quote from what has been said by a trade union leader, a headmaster and representatives of the parents.
According to The Scotsman, Mr. Alistair Fulton, president of the Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association, said in his retiring presidential address that local authorities were not using the powers that they had to dismiss teachers. He urged local authorities to use their existing powers and added:
I shall go out on a limb and say that there are times when I wish that they would have the guts to get rid of some of the useless members of our profession who slip through the various training nets and end up in a classroom where they do nothing but damage.

Mr. Ernie Ross: May we have it on the record that that was the retiring statement of the person concerned?

Mr. Stewart: I am not especially grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I said that it was a retiring address. I am not suggesting that the SSTA is in favour of the repeal of section 88, because it has circulated a letter to all Members suggesting that it is not. What I am saying is that there is general concern about how incompetent teachers are dealt with.
I quote further from the head teacher of Firhill high school in Edinburgh. Addressing the head teachers' association, as reported on 9 May 1981, he said:
Falling rolls now present an ideal opportunity to weed out the faults in the system.
He suggested that
by a combination of good management and the agreement of the unions, they"—
that is, the community—
had a sporting chance of getting rid of or demoting bad principal teachers, promoting good young teachers with ideas and transferring others to where they are most needed".

7 pm

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman help the House by defining what he means by "bad teachers"?

Mr. Stewart: No, I am not an expert in these matters. I have no intention of defining what I mean by "bad teachers".
I further quote from the Scottish Parent-Teacher Council. In a letter to COSLA, the chairman of that council said that parents
often see such individuals continuing to operate at a low level efficiency with no apparent effort on the part of authority within and without the school to improve the teacher's performance or to compensate the affected children for the low standard of teaching on offer.
Later in the same letter he said:
I wish to offer the opinion that parents in general would welcome and support initiatives by the education authorities to raise the general level of efficiency of teachers by identifying and eliminating the poorest levels of performance.
The chairman ended his letter by saying that
my purpose is to ally parental concern to that expressed within the profession by Mr. Fulton"—
that is, by the president of the SSTA—
I trust this alliance will add weight to the cause of reform.
I should like to divide into two the arguments for the removal of section 88. First, the argument of general principle that there is now no general need to have a statutory right. Scottish teachers and authorities should have the freedom to negotiate dismissal procedures in the same way as happens in England. Secondly, there has been a radical change since 1882 in terms, first, of general employment legislation and, secondly, of the development of disciplinary procedures agreed in the Scottish teaching services conditions committee, which provide that before the provisions of section 88 are set in motion certain other steps should be taken—for example, final warning letters, an interview with the director of education and so on.
The third argument is that I believe that, in general terms, there needs to be a radical review of the whole system in the light of public concern.
I should like to discuss what a different system might mean. COSLA has informed the unions that, in seeking change, it refers in particular to problems involved in having statutorily the full education committee consider a case under section 88. It believes that there is a strong case for the appeal being to a sub-committee, such as is commonly employed by local authorities in respect of dismissal appeals by other staff. The point is that section 88 involving the full education committee means that each individual case—one is talking about a very small number of cases—is inevitably a cause celebre and takes place in a blaze of publicity, which is not necessarily to the benefit of individual teachers or of the education system as a whole.
I also make two particular criticisms of section 88. One of them comes back to the point made by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire. My understanding of section 88 is that it applies to a temporary contract. A teacher who is on, say a one-year contract, could appeal through section 88 at the end of that year to the full education authority, with the two-thirds majority and so on. I think that the House will generally accept that that may be an inadvertent result of section 88, but in general terms it is not a desirable situation.
Secondly, on the detailed points, individual teachers—this is a point from the management side of the negotiating machinery—could contest a redundancy notice through section 88 even if redundancies had been agreed between the authority and the teachers' unions. As I shall argue, the question is not about redundancy in general, but that is an important detailed point.
I come to the arguments against change that have been put forward by the unions, by the EIS, by the SSTA and the NAS/UWT. In passing—I shall not dwell on the point—I deplore the initial reaction of the EIS to my tabling of the new clause, because I made it clear, and was correctly reported in the press as saying, that I was tabling this for discussion and was not committed to pushing the matter to a vote. That was on 6 May, and it was correctly reported. Within days there were reports in the press of threatened strike action by the EIS against my right to raise the matter in the House. That was an exceedingly unfortunate episode and it gave a very bad impression of the EIS. I did not think very much of its press release of 9 May, either, in which the key point seems to be:
Now Mr. Stewart"—
that is myself—I should not wish there to be any misunderstanding in relation to the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart)—
proposes to deprive teachers of section 88 in an amendment which depends upon the votes of English MPs and which he has slipped on to the Order Paper without warning and with no consultation whatsoever.
The fact is that it does not depend on the votes of English MPs, because, as we all know, any Committee of the House reflects the composition of the House as a whole, and therefore, politically, it makes no difference in party terms whether something is put down in Committee or on the Floor of the House. I totally reject the accusation that I slipped it on to the Amemdment Paper. It was put on the Amendment Paper on 6 May. I immediately informed the press. It is now 8 June. I informed the press within minutes of putting it on the Amendment Paper.

Mr. Maxton: As usual.

Mr. Stewart: I considered that such information was in the public interest, and there has been plenty of time for consultation. I also repudiate the following statement:
Mr. Stewart has already been identified with attacks on teachers which lend credence to the belief of the EIS that his amendment is politically motivated".
The only attack on teachers that I have ever made was an attack on a teacher whose activities resulted in the publication in the Socialist Worker of so-called essays about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I do not think that anyone defended the action of that particular teacher. I take grave exception to a generalised smear of that nature, especially as I am proud to be the son of a teacher.
As a result, I regret to say that I have been on the receiving end of a number of abusive personal letters. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] However, I stand unbowed. I am accustomed to receiving abusive letters. It is a matter of great regret that everybody in Scotland does not, as yet, agree with everything that I say.
In all seriousness, however, I have received many letters, especially from responsible teachers, who have spelt out their genuine anxieties about the effect of repeal. Briefly, the basic arguments against repeal are, first, that section 88, in one form or another, has been around for a long time. I find that an appealing argument, because I have always argued that the evidence of imperfection is not a justification for change. Secondly, there is a fear that repeal would result in massive redundancies. COSLA has tried hard to make it clear that that is not the objective of the repeal of section 88.
Thirdly, there is the argument that dismissed teachers find it hard to get jobs or, at a more economically sophisticated level, the oligopoly argument. I suspect that a pedant would call it the oligopsony argument, as we are dealing with collusive buyers and not collusive sellers. The argument is that a sacked teacher finds it difficult to get another job. I accept that, but members of other groups of employees, such as coal miners, also find it difficult to get jobs after being dismissed. That is not a justification for special legislation to exempt particular groups from general national legislation. In practice, it would be impossible to implement legislation along those lines.
A fourth argument is that arbitrary dismissal would result—I have said that that is not what is proposed—from a straight repeal of section 88 without anything to take its place. Teachers, like other local authority employees, have a complex system prior to dismissal.
The final argument is important and leads me to say that I do not propose to divide the House on the new clause. The argument has been put to me by the unions, and especially the NUS/UWT, that teachers may be subject to dismissal, not on party political grounds, but on broadly political grounds. For example, a career teacher dedicated to standards might make himself unpopular with his colleagues who were not so dedicated. He may be subject to dismissal. The NUS/UWT quotes the case of a teacher of mathematics who got into trouble with the authorities because he wanted his pupils to study mathematics on one morning when the headmaster insisted that they all went for a sponsored walk. There are genuine problems.
There are specific criticisms to be made of the present system under section 88. There is a serious case for the system to be reviewed responsibly, coolly and sensibly. I am sure that we shall have that sort of debate. It would be in the interests of resonsible teachers, parents and the pupils in our schools.

Mr. David Steel: I have never considered the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart) to be one of nature's dangerous demagogues. I find it surprising that his new clause has generated so much excitement. He has introduced a constructive and useful topic for discussion. It is sad that he attached it to such an unworkable and opposed new clause, which he has had the grace to say he does not intend to pursue. It is a classic example of an important topic of the sort that we should discuss, if the proposals that have been kicking around for more than a year come into effect and we ever have the opportunity to meet in Edinburgh as a body of Scottish Members of Parliament. I should welcome such a change.
The new clause has received much attention and has provoked many parents and teachers into writing to their Members of Parliament, and I have received my fair share of correspondence. Almost all of it is opposed to the new clause. However, we need not pursue its merits.
What emerges clearly—as a parent I share the view—is that there is much disquiet about the present unemployment in the teaching profession. Just as the hon. Member would be wrong to sweep away at a stroke the protection of employment in the teaching profession, so we have gone to the other extreme. A view widely held within the profession and among parents is that it is difficult to dismiss a teacher nowadays for anything short of

scandalous conduct. Without having checked, I think that I am right in saying that the only case of dismissal of a teacher in my constituency in recent years was following a court conviction. That cannot be right, especially at a time of high general unemployment, in the teaching profession in particular. Just as it is true that a child's character and career can be moulded effectively by a successful teacher, so is the opposite true. Year after year groups of children can have their chances belittled by having the wrong teacher in the wrong place.
What is needed is not a draconian view that teachers should be subject to capricious dismissal by local authorities—that would not be a civilised or tolerable course to take—but a more flexible arrangement whereby the inspectorate in Scotland can, as a result of visits and reports, identify teachers who may have wandered into the wrong profession or may have been in the wrong school for far too long. Every possible assistance should be given to those teachers to move into some other occupation. I do not pretend that it would be easy, but if we could devise such a system ,in consultation and co-operation with the teachers' representative bodies in Scotland, both the profession and the parents would be satisfied.
To that extent the hon. Member has raised an important issue. If he were minded to press the new clause to a Division he would not find me or my colleagues supporting him, on this occasion, but, it is a topic to which we should return .

Mr. Henderson: I agree with the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) that my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart) has made a valuable contribution with his new clause to the discussion of the future of education and teaching in Scotland. I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be unfortunate if the new clause were pressed to a Division.
When a body as important as the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—which is the employer, through regional councils, of most of the teachers in Scotland—puts a firm recommendation to a Committee of the House that section 88 of the 1980 Act should be repealed, that should be given the grace of consideration by the House.
It was unfortunate that COSLA bounced that on to those sitting on the Committee without, apparently, having discussed it with its employees. The House should ensure that as much discussion as possible takes place before it is invited to legislate on a matter of such importance. On the one hand, the Government would want to discuss it with COSLA. I do not know how much discussion there has been between the two. COSLA should be discussing it with regional councils, and COSLA and those councils should be discussing it with the teachers' organisations concerned, because it affects teachers' basic contracts of service. Before we reach a decision on the matter we should be assured that there has been proper consultation and that consideration has been given to all the issues involved.
I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there are some bad teachers in Scotland, although the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) seemed to doubt that.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I simply asked the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart) to define a bad teacher, and I ask the hon. Gentleman the same question.

Mr. Henderson: I shall not define a bad teacher, but in the past week or two I have met many teachers, including official groups representing teachers' organisations, to discuss the issue, and the majority of those with whom I have discussed the matter have said exactly what I told the House just now—there are some bad teachers. I shall not try to define a bad teacher, but I take it that those people have a fairly clear idea of what they mean by a bad teacher.
I start from the premise that there are in Scotland some bad teachers with whom, under the present system, it is difficult to deal decently and reasonably, in a way that is fair to the person concerned—who may be a decent person even though he happens not to be a good teacher—and in a way that is fair to his employers, to the parents of the children he teaches and, not least, to the children in his care. If COSLA tells us that there is a serious problem, we should at least consider the issues.
First, should there be special protection for teachers in their contracts because they are placed in a special position of employment risk compared with the majority of other workers? Chief constables and chief executives of local authorities have been protected by Parliament against dismissal to a greater degree than other groups of workers. Should teachers also be in that position? If so, by what precise mechanism should we give them appropriate protection, while providing an assurance that our children will have a professionally competent person teaching them?
I believe that in the short time since my hon. Friend brought the matter to the attention of the House there has not been enough discussion on such issues for us to reach a sensible conclusion today. I am glad that my hon. Friend said that he would not press the new clause to a vote.
However, I draw attention to a curiosity. The first letter on the subject that I received was dated 27 April 1981, and I received it on 29 April. The Fife local association of the EIS told me that it wished
to protest strongly over the inclusion in the list of amendments to the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 of an amendment to repeal section 88 of the principal Act, which protects teachers from dismissal.
That was curious, because I understand that my hon. Friend did not table his new clause until 6 May. What worries me is apparent collusion in a hysterical attack upon my hon. Friend, the Government and Tories in general, generated by a small group within the teaching profession.
It is curious that COSLA, which is controlled by the Labour Party, put up this proposal in the first place. It started the hare running. The EIS, or parts of it, appeared to be chasing that hare, blaming the Government and Tories in general for bringing out such a horrible suggestion—before anyone had put any such proposal before the House. The week before that happened, an hon. Member who is not now present advocated from the Opposition Front Bench that head teachers at least should go for reselection, like Labour Members, every five years, with the possibility that they could be sacked without further notice. That seemed to me to be an attack upon the teaching profession and the employment conditions and terms of service of teachers meriting considerable anxiety in the teaching profession, but I have had no representations from any of the teachers' unions on that matter. That seems odd when I think of what I can describe

only as a hysterical outburst from the EIS, in particular, about the proposal that my hon. Friend has put forward for discussion.
Therefore, I ask whether there was collusion between Labour members of COSLA, Labour Party supporters who are active in certain teaching unions and hon. Members who wanted to find something with which they could beat the Tories over the head. It is remarkable that until about a fortnight ago practically all the representations on the matter that I received suggested that the Government proposed to abolish section 88. All the representations were aimed at the Government, the Tories in general or my hon. Friend.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that a possible reason was that the immediate EIS press reaction to the tabling of new clause 2 at no point mentioned COSLA, although the EIS was well aware from the previous representations that the proposal originally came from COSLA?

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for adding that useful information.
I have received from the EIS a letter dated 8 May, a printed letter that was no doubt sent to all hon. Members. It said that the issue was
to be debated in the House of Commons on 20 May.
That was wrong. It spoke of
an amendment to the Education Bill which would remove irrevocably"—
I do not believe that anything that the House does is ever irrevocable. The letter went on:
If the Section is repealed it will be possible for the number of teachers to be reduced with the greatest possible ease."—
I find that hard to believe—
The amendment has been tabled by Mr. Allan Stewart, Conservative Member for Renfrewshire"—
bringing in the Tories again—
who has already been identifed with attacks on the teaching profession."—
As my hon. Friend explained earlier, he has only once attacked any teacher, far less the profession, and he is the son of a distinguished teacher—
This strengthens the belief that the amendment is designed for no other purpose than to facilitate the reduction of staffing standards or to get rid of teachers for political rather than professional or educational reasons.
What was the political motivation of the person who wrote that letter? It was signed by the general secretary of the EIS, but I cannot imagine that he, with his knowledge of political affairs, wrote it.
The employers of most of the teachers are Labour-controlled local authorities. I have heard of many local authority areas in which teachers have expressed anxiety about political motivation in appointments and staffing. I have never heard of one Tory local authority where that has been said. In the debate on the previous new clause there was a legitimate reference to former staffing problems in Lanarkshire. I cannot speak for the validity of what I was told, but there was one authority in particular in which people used to say to me no good teacher would teach because they said "The only way in which fro get promotion there is to make sure you do your thing with the Labour Party". If ever there has been any political intervention in the teaching profession to the disadvantage of teachers, I believe that it is much more likely to have come from Labour local authorities that have played that kind of game. I do not believe that Tory local authorities have played that game. I hope that they never will.
7.30 pm
It is vital that the House ensures that the teaching profession remains a profession of honour, dignity and respect, the interests of which will be properly protected in society. I believe that proper consideration should be given to bringing about that situation in an orderly way.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) with some trepidation. The hon. Gentleman was less than flattering to his hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart). One part of his speech suggested that COSLA, being Labour-controlled, put up the proposed amendment to section 88 as a cockshy so that some Tory would fall for it, move it and therefore bring himself and the Tory Party into great disrepute. I can hardly believe that that was the intention of the hon. Member for Fife, East. If he reflects, he will realise that his was one of the most stupid speeches that he has made in the House. It is ridiculous to suggest that this sort of idea was put forward. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Fife, East is so unintelligent as to say that kind of thing. We can therefore dismiss it.
New clause 2 is mischievous and ill-considered. The suggestion that we should change the practice in relation to the employment of teachers, far less anyone else, in an arbitrary manner by moving the deletion of a section of an Act is offensive to good trade union practice, as the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East should understand. I do not say that the matter should not be discussed. If, however, changes are to be made in employment contracts, these can only be discussed following full consultation between the employers, the trade unions and the profession. No amendment should be moved in the House unless proper negotiations have taken place.
It is not correct to say that there is no forum in which these matters can be discussed. Reference has been made to the Scottish teachers conditions of service committee. That committee, on which the employers sit and on which the Government are represented by members of the Scottish Education Department, can discuss teachers' conditions of service in broad principle or in detail. Yet such discussion has not taken place. I hope that the Government will have learnt a lesson from the Civil Service dispute. It takes a long time to build up trust and confidence between particular professions and the Government. I know to my cost how fragile can be the relationships between the teaching profession and the Government.
The teaching profession, has for many years felt that its wages and conditions have been decided in some senses arbitrarily by the Government. That may not be quite true. However, there has grown up over the last decade—possibly longer—a feeling that the teaching profession is a Cinderella and that teachers are not accorded their proper place in society. Trust between the Government and the teaching profession is essential if education in Scotland is to progress.
There has been almost no mention of the real beneficiaries of the education system, namely, the children. It is the children about whom we should be concerned. I put the benefits to, and the well-being of, children in the education service above all else. If progress is to be made in education, it requires more than just the unwilling co-operation of the teaching profession. I concede that changes in education have to be made.
However, the co-operation of the teaching profession needs to be willing and enthusiastic. My fear is that Conservative Members, whether Back Benchers or members of the Government, often have no concept of how much confidence can be destroyed or damaged by the throwaway line, the chance reaction or the chance moving of an amendment. The whole fabric can be destroyed in a matter of minutes. I fear that this is what has happened here.
The reaction of some of the teaching unions and some individuals may have seemed to some people hysterical. They reacted very sharply and very quickly. That is, however, not surprising. The whole system of education has been under attack. The position of teachers is under attack. We shall be discussing, I hope, the situation whereby schools are closing in all parts of the country. It is difficult, certainly for the teaching profession, to see how standards can be maintained as money becomes ever tighter. In these circumstances, there is tremendous nervousness among the teaching profession. It is no good hon. Members saying that teachers should not be nervous or react quickly. They have been under pressure for a considerable time.
It has been suggested that there should not be separate committees. At the moment there is one committee to deal with pay and another to deal with conditions of service. It has been suggested that one committee should deal with pay and conditions of service. At the back of the minds of teachers is the belief that the Government are looking for ways in which redundancies can be made more easily. I recognise that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East says that this has nothing to do with redundancies. The trouble is that these matters cannot be discussed in a vacuum. The background to the situation has to be taken into account.
What bothers me about the new clause is that I suspect that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East was kite-flying to see the reaction. It does not matter whether COSLA proposed what is contained in the new clause. The responsibility for tabling the new clause lies solely with the hon. Member. He tabled the new clause in the least helpful manner if he was hoping to get a discussion on what is happening in the teaching profession. It is grossly irresponsible that this matter should be discussed in a vacuum, suggesting that the section should be removed and that there should be discussions about what should take its place. No one has proposed anything to take its place.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that it would have been better if this important point made by the convention had not been discussed by the House at all? That seems to be what he is suggesting.

Mr. Hughes: That is exactly what I am saying. If, as I believe is true, COSLA did not discuss this matter with the teaching profession, it was grossly irresponsible of it to include the matter in any submission. The Bill has been in a state of germination for a long time. It did not suddenly appear. Over the last two years the Government have been considering how education might move forward. Any suggestion that section 88 should be changed should come only after the most detailed discussion. It was irresponsible for COSLA to have put it forward. It was certainly irresponsible of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East to table the new clause, knowing that


it would cause difficulties. I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman thought that he could table the new clause in its bald form without realising that it would cause problems.
If the hon. Gentleman had wanted proper, responsible discussion he could have written to the teaching unions. He could have pointed out that COSLA had put forward the suggestion and that the new clause had not been tabled in Committee. He could have said that he felt the matter should be discussed and that he wanted the unions' views. He could have made it clear that he wanted the matter to be open for debate, both in the House and outside, and that he was considering placing the new clause on the Amendment Paper. If he had done that, we would not have had such a reaction from the teaching unions. Naturally, they saw the measure as a direct threat to their conditions of service. If he had taken such action he would have done much to remove the misapprehension that may exist.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Those discussions took place. Subsequently, I had a responsible discussion with the Educational Institute of Scotland, which then reported that discussion accurately and reasonably on the front page of its journal. I objected to the initial reaction, which was irresponsible. I refer particularly to press reports about possible strike action.

Mr. Hughes: The reaction was not irresponsible. Whether it was hasty is a different matter. That is a question of definition. The hon. Gentleman has given the game away. He said that after tabling the new clause he had a reasonable and rational discussion, which was properly reported. He should have had that discussion before tabling the new clause.

Mr. Henderson: How does the hon. Gentleman explain the fact that I received letters from the EIS about this problem before my hon. Friend tabled his new clause? Presumably, anxiety about the possibility that the matter would be discussed in the House arose before my hon. Friend had tabled the new clause. Was it not better, therefore, that the matter should be debated openly?

Mr. Hughes: I cannot explain why the hon. Gentleman received letters a couple of days before the new clause was tabled. If he did receive such letters, did he discuss them with anyone else?

Mr. Henderson: Yes. I discussed them with my hon. Friend, who had served on the committee. I asked him what it was all about. He said that the matter had not come before the committee and that he did not know what it involved, other than that COSLA had put forward a proposition and that the matter might be related to that.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is making matters worse. If he had alerted the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East to the fact that he was beginning to receive letters expressing grave reservations, and if the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East then tabled the new clause without consulting the teaching unions, he compounded the felony. I had thought that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East had misconceived the matter, but things begin to look different. Perhaps there is more to the case put forward by the teaching unions than we were led to believe.
Far from there being collusion between COSLA and Labour Members to embarrass the Tories, it begins to look as if there was collusion between the hon. Member for

Renfrewshire, East and the hon. Member for Fife, East to be provocative and to table a new clause, secure in the knowledge that there was great concern about it.
7.45 pm
Teachers sometimes have to teach difficult subjects. In the old days things were fairly straightforward. Technical and scientific subjects were taught. There was a base curriculum, and reading, writing and arithmetic were taught throughout the school. However, as the school leaving age has gone up we have begun to understand that there is more to teaching than simply stuffing facts down children's throats in the hope that they will regurgitate them and satisfy the examiner on the day. We have come to understand that the teacher's role is also to discuss the wider aspects of life. Therefore, teachers venture into extremely controversial subjects. It is easy for teachers of civic studies, for example, to be accused of political bias.
Sometimes parents get the wrong end of the stick. One evening I was canvassing and was astonished to be told by a parent that she was disturbed by what was happening in her daughter's school because her daughter was having political propaganda stuffed down her throat. Naturally, I object to that kind of thing. I made inquiries and was told that the teacher involved was a raving fanatical member of the SNP, who used his occupation as a teacher to push SNP propaganda. As the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) would have been, I was upset. Like me, I am sure that he does not want party political propaganda to be pushed in schools.
As might be expected, I made further inquiries. I discovered that the person involved was teaching a class how political parties operated. It so happened that the only political party that he had been able to contact was the SNP. I accepted that information in good faith. I said that I was sure that a teacher would not abuse his position, and I accepted what I was told as a literal truth. I visited Labour Party headquarters and collected a bunch of material. I gave it to the girl and told her to hand it to the teacher. I said that if the teacher was unwilling to use the material in the way that he had used the SNP material, I should have words to say about it. I am glad to report that the material was used. I understand that subsequently the teacher took great care to contact all the political parties in his area to ensure that he received material from them. That is good.
If I had been headstrong, politically motivated and irresponsible, rather than a sober Member of Parliament who takes his responsibilities seriously and never acts without thoroughly investigating the matter, I could have done that teacher's reputation great harm. Given the political composition of Grampion regional council and given also that some of the Tory councillors are not exactly known for their tact, they might have attempted to get rid of that teacher if I had pressed the matter.
I have not laboured that small example, because I am anxious to stay within the rules of order. However, that is one example of how a teacher can land himself in difficulties because of a lack of knowledge or because he may not have gone far enough into the matter. Therefore, we should not take away the section 88 protection without putting a properly considered measure in its place. At a time when events do not threaten, there should be rational discussion. Other matters could bring a teacher into disrepute. Neither the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East nor the hon. Member for Fife, East was willing lo define a bad teacher. They dodged that issue.
This is at the core of the argument. If we are to have some sort of dismissal procedure for teachers different from that in section 88, there must be some definition of the misdeeds for which teachers can be sacked. We must decide whether it is a matter of teaching capability. I accept that there are some teachers who start off in the profession with the best of good intentions but find that they are not suited to it. But what else is there for them to do? As the days go by, there is even less for them to do. Therefore, there is a tendency for teachers who might otherwise think of leaving the profession not to do so because there is nothing else for them to do. Therefore, they are very concerned to see what happens.
In my view there has to be some sort of continuous assessment, and everyone must know what that system is to be. I do not want to stray into the realm of continuous assessment of the educational capabilities of pupils, but continuous assessment has its problems. There are some people who are very good teachers but who, perhaps, do not get on with Her Majesty's Inspectorate. We have to take care of such people.
It is very difficult to define a bad teacher. Hon. Members may regard this as a rather simplistic definition, but I regard a bad teacher as one who does not have the interests of his pupils at heart. That is the prime concern.
In this connection, what is to be done about the controversial issue of corporal punishment? Here too, there is an area which, it might be thought, could lead to teachers being sacked. Any teacher who uses corporal punishment as a teaching method ought to be right out of our schools, but the way to deal with that is to deal with corporal punishment and not with the individual teacher. A teacher might have very strong views about corporal punishment. If he uses it, or expresses himself publicly, an authority which is strongly against it might be tempted, unless there are other provisions in the way, to get rid of that teacher for that reason.
In our discussions we have not come forward with any idea of what might be put in the place of section 88 if it is removed. To do that without taking into account the fact that teachers are concerned about redundancies and that the new clause has suddenly been put on the Amendment Paper without prior consultation with them, either by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East or by COSLA is irresponsible in the extreme.
The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East may not realise it, but I fear that he has prejudiced a discussion about changes in section 88, which many hon. Members have said should take place. It is now sown in the minds of many in the teaching profession that this has been done. If, in a month, two months or six months the Government say to the teachers "Let us discuss whether we can get rid of section 88", they will feel that it is part of a determined attempt to reduce their conditions of service instead of, first, enhancing the status of the good teacher and, secondly, finding a way in which teachers who are incompetent—I accept that there are some—or who are unsuitable for the profession—I accept that there are some—are retrained and given the kind of knowledge that will make them better teachers, or are eased out of the profession.
This matter has been discussed in a way that is not helpful. I regret that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East tabled the new clause in its present form and in the manner that he did.

Mr. John MacKay: I have some sympathy with the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). It is one of the regrettable results of this debate and of the three or four weeks leading up to it that some unfortunate comments have been made about section 88. However, that is not the fault of my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart). It is much more the fault of the Educational Institute of Scotland, which has reacted in an hysterical manner and put out the most ludicrous statements about my hon. Friend and about the composition of the House that I have seen for many a day other than, from not the Left wing of the Labour Party, but the Scottish National Party. That is more the stuff to which the outpourings of the EIS could be likened. It is unfortunate, because there is a background of discussion about the general question of the security of tenure of the very incompetent teacher.
I am sure that all hon. Members who contribute to this debate read avidly The Times Educational Supplement. In last weekend's edition there were two references to the problem of the incompetent teacher. The first was by the visitation committee of the General Teaching Council of Scotland, which was looking into operations in Dundee and Aberdeen colleges of education and at the liaison between the colleges and schools. It said:
The most worrying statement we heard came from a principal teacher whose report on a student had said that under no circumstances should the student be allowed to become a teacher. He received no acknowledgement of his adverse report and claimed that the student became a teacher in due course and fulfilled the worst predictions.
In the same edition last weekend there was a report on the conference of the National Association of Head Teachers. I admit that that took place in England, the problem does not recognise the internal boundaries of the country as being uncrossable. The conference agreed overwhelmingly to support moves to weed out incompetent and inadequate teachers. One representative said:
It would be tragic if we continue to get square pegs in round holes. The greatest misery would be on the teacher himself.
There is a great deal of discussion going on about this problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East mentioned the retiring president of the Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association, Mr. Alistair Fulton, and quoted what he said. He expressed concern. To date I have not read any report of the recent conference of the EIS. I do not know whether it has given any consideration to the matter. I may find that I have to withdraw these words when I read any reports, but I have not yet read in the Scottish press that the EIS has turned its mind to this difficult problem of the incompetent and inadequate teacher. All that it did on this issue was to raise the temperature by tens of degrees with the histrionic attack, that it made on my hon. Friend who, after all, tabled a proposal that was suggested to him by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
If putting down a motion suggested by COSLA is an offence, Labour Members were guilty of that offence day after day in Standing Committee, where they did it all the time. I do not consider that putting down COSLA


amendments is an offence, whether it be done by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East or by an Opposition Member.
It is unfortunate that the EIS has chosen not to argue the pros and cons of section 88 and whether the section could be amended to get round the problem faced by the authorities in removing inadequate teachers. Instead, it has chosen to adopt a more histrionic approach.
Those hon. Members who received a letter from the Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association got a far better argument against my hon. Friend's proposal. What is more, if hon. Members had read an article in The Scotsman on 2 June 1981 by the retiring general secretary of the SSTA they would have read a very much better critique of his proposal than we shall hear from the Opposition in this debate.
8 pm
The background to the problem is that for many years the principal objective of education authorities, backed by the teacher's union, was that anyone in front of a class was a good thing, and that it did not much matter whether the body was good, bad or indifferent—anybody would do. Those days have ended, so the time has come to look at the problem of those in the teaching profession who are inadequate and incompetent.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North posed the question twice to my hon. Friends about how they would define an inadequate or incompetent teacher. He suggested that not having the interests of the pupil at heart might be a definition. I am afraid that that will not do. Some of the most incompetent teachers that I know have the interests of the pupil at heart, but they are totally unable to put across their subject and maintain any discipline in the classroom.
Every large school has one or two incompetent or inadequate teachers. Every headmaster despairs of them. All the pupils know them. The parents worry about their children having them. Yet the record of authorities removing them is bad. COSLA suggests that the reason is section 88. I doubt that very much. In support of that contention I shall read a quotation from an article in the The Scotsman by Jimmy Docherty of the SSTA.
However, let me first give the background. The present procedure is that the director must take the case to the education authority. Presumably, the case has been made for him by the inspectorate, by the headmaster and from reports from inside the school by the principal teacher, and so on. The article says:
If a director produces clear evidence of incompetence and still cannot persuade two-thirds of the committee to vote for dismissal, then either the committee does not have much confidence in its chief official or the members of the committee are taking into account considerations other than educational ones—possibly ideological or political or personal.
And if a director is reluctant even to try to have the committee consider and adopt a resolution for the dismissal of an incompetent teacher, he cannot have much confidence in the ability of the committee to make an objective and unbiased decision on a matter of great educational importance.
In either case, it is not repeal of Section 88 which is called for, but a great deal of soul-searching on the part of the directors and their committee.
That sums up the case against my hon. Friend's proposal.
We must look to the education committee and to the directorate for a solution of the problem. A positive commitment is required—perhaps we have it, in that COSLA suggested the proposal—by COSLA and the teachers' unions to find a procedure that will make it

simpler to take cases to the education committee. As any teacher knows, there is evidence that in the past headmasters have said to directors "Here is my evidence", and the directors have simply said "I am not taking that to the committee because it is not enough", or something similar. The headmaster is left thinking "What else can I do but collect the evidence that I have? I can think of no other evidence that would add to the weighty case that I already have, but the directorate is reluctant to go to the committee." I hope that the teachers' unions and COSLA, and perhaps my hon. Friend's Department, will have—I hate to use the term, but I think that in this case it's almost appropriate—meaningful discussions about this problem.
An incompetent teacher damages the educational opportunities of the children in his charge. Schools go through the most elaborate procedures to lessen the damage, as I am sure that Labour Members who have been teachers know. Instead of a class having a teacher for a whole year, the department changes about every term so that pupils have the bad teacher for only one term out of a whole session. That is not a good solution, but it is the way to get round the problem of condemning a child to a whole year with a poor teacher.
I am glad that we are debating this matter, but I wish that we were not to have a debate on the proposal tabled by my hon. Friend and whether he should have tabled it without the prior permission of the EIS. That is a pity. However, it is important that those with responsibility for the matter who read the report of our debate and should attempt to tackle the problem.
Authorities, through headmasters, and following reports from the inspectorate, can start to take action in this regard. I hope that they will begin to do that. If next year, or the year after, they come back to us and say "We have done it. We took 20 or 30 cases to the education committees and we failed time and again because they would not listen to us", we should consider whether to amend section 88. However, I do think that that will happen. The members of an education committee are as interested in the kind and quality of education that is provided in their areas as is anyone else. If a good case is put to them and they hear the teacher's side, too, I believe that they will act responsibly and remove that teacher from his post.
The stumbling block, therefore, is not the education committee, with the powers of section 88 round its neck. Rather, it is the administration, which has been reluctant to take cases to the education committee. That reluctance must be removed, but it cannot be done by legislation. We can do that only by making it clear to those concerned that they have an obligation under existing legislation to take action and do something for the standing of the teaching profession and for the education of the children, who, through no fault of their own, find that part of their school career is blighted by an incompetent teacher.

Mr. Donald Stewart: The hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) put his finger on the fact that the new clause is not the way to tackle incompetent teachers. I shall not define them, but obviously in every profession some members are better than others, and some are imcompetent.
I do not know why the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) was so uptight about the EIS having preceded what happened by a few days. That seemed to me intelligent anticipation. The hon. Member for


Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart) has not been slandered. If someone says "This man is going to burgle a house"—I hope the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East will forgive the comparison—and the house is burgled a week later, surely the burglar's reputation has not been severely damaged. The hon. Member for Fife, East found it even more objectionable that his hon. Friend was described as a Conservative. Things have not reached that pass yet, even in Scotland.
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East when he says that the same disciplinary procedure should be used as in England. I am willing to agree with anything that comes from England or Tanzania if it can be proved to me that it is better than what obtains in Scotland. However, I am extremely hostile to anything that suggests that something should be changed in Scotland simply because it is done differently south of the border. That is not only an insufficient argument, but it is offensive to Scots.
The purpose of section 88 was to ensure security to teachers. When one has been trained as a teacher one is not much good for anything else. It is not true to say that a sacked coal miner would find it just as hard to find a job as would a sacked teacher. The coal miner could go to another colliery and have a reasonable chance of being employed. If he worked well, his career would be safe. That is not true of a sacked teacher. So it is right that teachers who have been trained for that job should have security and should not be removed from their jobs without serious reason.
I am not sure that if section 88 were abolished there would be any more guts to tackle the question of the incompetent teacher. I am not convinced that the abolition of section 88 would make any difference.
Falling rolls are said to present an opportunity to dismiss bad teachers. I do not believe that there will be any more readiness to grapple with that problem. The repeal of section 88 might allow politically motivated authorities to get rid of teachers they do not like. I do not see any good reason for changing the safeguard. The abolition of section 88 is not the way to remove incompetent teachers.

Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome the opportunity to speak about the new clause, because the issue is important to Scottish parents. Teachers in the public sector should not be surprised that their employers, COSLA and the directors of education, should be assessing how teachers can be dismissed. In recent years few teachers have been dismissed under the terms of section 88 or under previous similar legislation. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how many teachers have been dismissed under section 88.

Mr. Maxton: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would also like to ask the Minister how many other local government employees who do not have the protection of section 88 have been dismissed.

Mr. Walker: We are discussing teachers.
Since 1880 teachers have enjoyed favourable terms of employment and, until recently, almost total job security. Some parents might believe that teachers have enjoyed privileged terms of employment without exercising a corresponding and equal accountablility and responsibility. Professional people in the private sector regard teachers as highly privileged.
Why should we debate the matter, and why are changes sought? The first reason for so doing is that there is a surplus of teachers, which brings about pressures to get rid of incompetent teachers. However, I believe that there is more to it than that. The demand, in part, is a reaction by employers to the path that teachers' organisations have chosen to follow and to the action that some teachers have taken to further their aims, often without regard to the well-being of their pupils.
No longer are teachers' organisations regarded as professional representative bodies. Instead, they are regarded and described, especially by Opposition Members, as teachers trade unions. That sums up the problem. Teachers' unions have indulged in industrial action that is far removed from the high standards and values previously associated with Scotland's teachers. Discontent under the Labour Government caused teachers to picket at school gates. We still see teachers picketing under the present Government. Teachers are subjected to unhappy and unsatisfactory media exposure. We have seen dishevelled and scruffy individuals at school gates representing teachers' organisations.

Mr. Maxton: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that teachers who take part in industrial action should be dismissed?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman has not listened carefully to what I have said. I was describing the reaction of employers. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen carefully. I am worried, because I believe that the majority of Scottish teachers are good and that the activities of some have damaged the majority. That is disturbing. I understand that teachers in the Lothian region are considering calling a one-day strike in an effort to persuade their employers to retain about half a dozen temporary teachers. That is what I have in mind.
I and others have tried to warn teachers of the dangers that they face if they persist in behaving like industrial trade union members. They are placing at risk their professional terms of employment. There is nothing odd about an employer reacting to employees' actions. The majority of Scotland's teachers are prepared to be treated as professionals. A dedicated professional teacher has nothing to fear from the repeal of section 88. Teachers would not welcome its repeal because they would see it as a threat to their professional terms of employment and accountability. Professional dedicated teachers take that seriously.
8.15 pm
I hope that the Government will take note of the strong feelings of COSLA, the directors of education and parents about the way in which teachers have behaved and the non-dismissal of unsatisfactory teachers. That is the crux of the matter.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) tried to define an unsatisfactory teacher. I suggest that a teacher who fails to measure up to the standards required for that individual to qualify at any time afterwards is not a good teacher. Other organisations carry out regular evaluation exercises. That is done on an annual basis. Flying instructors in the RAF, for instance, are required to undergo annual reassessments of their flying and teaching ability. It is not easy to become a qualified flying instructor. It is much more difficult than passing through teacher training college. In addition to being able to teach,


an instructor must be able to fly well. That is a rare combination It should be possible to evaluate training standards on an annual basis. The inspectorate should be capable of that.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Once again, neolithic man, the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) gives his view of people who are responsible and make an invaluable contribution to the well-being of the country. I hope that Scottish teachers will carefully read the Official Report tomorrow so that they will know exactly what the hon. Gentleman has said.
The proposal of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart) marks the latest phase in the Government's battle against the Scottish education system. We sought to fight that in every way possible in Committee. When one listens to speeches by Conservative Members, one realises how difficult it was for the Opposition to persuade the Government that the Bill would do nothing for education in Scotland.
The proposal is another phase in the attack by the Conservative Party on the Scottish education system. Tory Members are not content with antagonising every sector of education, from nursery schools to universities and colleges of education. Universities play an important role in providing suitably qualified teachers for our high schools. Reports appeared in yesterday's press that because of the Government's cuts in aid to the University Grants Committee there was a threat to merge Dundee university with St. Andrews university. If those reports are true, I assure the Government that they will meet with absolute opposition from all sections of the community in Dundee.
The Government are not content with fierce cuts in expenditure on education and with holding down teachers' salaries. They are intent on a full-scale frontal attack on the teachers' ability to protect their jobs. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East was naive to suggest that there should not have been an immediate reaction from trade unionists to the announcement that he intended to table the new clause. It is usual for trade unions to react immediately on behalf of those whom they represent, to show from the outset the extent to which they will oppose any attack on their members' living standards or conditions of work. I would not have been happy if the EIS had not responded positively.
Conservative Members ask why teachers should have better job protection than car workers, plumbers or engineers. We agree with them. The Labour Administration sought additional protection for workers in industry generally through the Employment Protection Act 1975. We have only to look at this Government's legislation to see how they intend to safeguard the rights of workers. Their legislation is intended to lessen the protection that workers need to safeguard their livelihoods. The Bill is a further example of the Government's thinking.
The Bill demonstrates the callousness and insensitivity of the Government towards employment. Their thinking is portrayed in their every action. Although Conservative Members may say that they are glad that the new clause will not be pressed, I am sure that they would have supported it in the Lobby. It conforms to the general theme of their attack on working people and trade union rights.
Teachers have an important and responsible position in society, namely, the education of our youngsters. They

should have the support of the House rather than being constantly picked on by such Members as the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire. Because teachers are in a sensitive area of education, some will always be prepared to say that many of them, especially those teaching history and modern studies, are Left-wing extremists attempting to brainwash their pupils. Labour Members who have been teachers will refute that myth. Because of the serious nature of the charge and the vulnerability of teachers, it is essential that dismissal should take place only with the agreement of two-thirds of the education committee of the regional council. A simple majority is not enough. If a simple majority system is to be adopted, it may give the green light to politically motivated regions to begin a McCarthy-type witch hunt to weed out what they believe to be Left-wing suspects.
School teachers employed in the Tayside region, which has responsibility for eduation in my constituency, would be at risk under that system. The Tories do not have two-thirds of the seats on the education committee, so they cannot summarily dismiss teachers. If they were given the power of a simple majority system I am sure that they would set out, with the able assistance of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire, on a campaign against teachers whom they felt were not capable or competent.
Such measures stem from the Conservative Party's suspicion, superstition and downright hostility towards teachers who, during recent years, have failed to vote for it. The new clause would ensure that even more teachers in Scotland would not vote for the Conservative Party in the next general election. Even worse, under the new clause teachers would lose the right to be heard in their own defence. They would be informed that their contracts of employment had been terminated because the education committee believed that lessons were politically motivated. The education committee would act as prosecutor and judge. The new clause does not grant teachers the right to defend themselves. That runs against the basic concept of justice. There would be other reasons for dismissal such as "laziness", "does not teach classes properly", or "surplus to requirement". If the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire had his way they would be dismissed for not dressing as a teacher should dress. That is utter and arrant nonsense.

Mr. Bill Walker: The term I used was "scruffy".

Mr. Ross: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the accusation that he made some time ago in the Scottish press, when he said that teachers did not dress as teachers should.

Mr. Walker: I wish to correct the hon. Gentleman. I have no idea of the newspaper to which he refers, but I have always used the term "scruffy". It discribes clearly, as we Scots understand it, the meaning of a falling below standards. I have used that term consistently.

Mr. Ross: I have always believed that it is not a person's outward appearance that is important, but what is inside him. Those who seek to teach our children should be concerned for them. That has nothing to do with whether they wear a white collar and a tie, or a blouse and skirt. That is not important.

Mr. David Lambie: Or long hair.

Mr. Ross: I agree with my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), the leader of the Labour Party, for many years was regarded as a


person not concerned with his dress. Even now he is not concerned about it. He is more concerned with leading by example. What is important is what comes out of his mouth, rather than whether he has a jacket of the latest cut. I hope that teachers dress confidently, so that they feel comfortable in themselves and more able to teach our children. I have given an example of the sort of nonsense that we have heard from Conservative Members during debates on this nasty Bill.
Accusations have been made that opposition to the Bill comes only from members of the Labour Party. It is significant that the EIS is not affiliated to the Labour Party. That cannot be ignored. Equally, the response from teachers cannot be ignored. In Dundee the Ardler primary school, the Clepington primary school, the Douglas primary school and the Harris academy—the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire finds my reference to the Harris academy rather amusing; I am sure that he will agree that the academy is not a bastion of Left-wing Socialism—oppose the new clause. Almost without exception, every teacher in those schools and in the Gowriehill primary school signed letters in opposition to it. I doubt whether all those who signed the letters could be claimed to be members of the Labour Party.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that no Conservative Member has suggested that opposition comes solely from Labour Party members. In my opening remarks I referred to the concern and anxiety of responsible teachers about what might happen if section 88 were repealed.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East tabled the new clause and the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) gave us the background to the collusion that took place during and after its tabling. The speech of the hon. Member for Fife, East is the key to the issue. It must be set against the assumption that all teachers who are concerned about education are politically motivated and Labour Party members.
The new clause will not be pressed, but I do not think that this is the last that the House will hear of the Conservative Party's attempt to take away the hard-won rights of the teaching profession. Labour Members will seek to sustain the rights won by trade unionists, whether they are teachers, car workers or plumbers. I am glad that the new clause will not be pressed. I am glad also that the debate has taken place. It will alert the teaching profession in Scotland to the thinking of Conservative Members.

Mr. Maclennan: I do not know whether the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart) realised that he would cause such an interesting debate to take place on the sartorial propriety of the teaching profession. It has been perhaps the most passionate exchange to take place so far. I must express some doubt about whether the hon. Gentleman has served a useful purpose in opening the debate.
Initially, COSLA was reacting to widespread disquiet about the apparent inability to remove teachers and responding to discussion among parents and those in education authorities. It must be doubted whether COSLA made a case that needed to be ventilated in the House.
There is little evidence—certainly COSLA produced little—that section 88 constitutes a barrier to the removal of teachers. There have been only two attempts in the past year to remove teachers under section 88. One of the attempts was successful, and I think that that was in the Lothian region. In the other instance, not 50 per cent. of the education authority in the Orkneys was prepared to vote for the teacher's removal. This situation does not arise because there is a procedural difficulty that cannot be satisfied. It is intrinsically difficult to decide that a teacher should be removed for incompetency. It is difficult to do so because the evidence may not be clear. Undoubtedly, there will be anxiety on the part of those who exercise authority over teachers to ensure that they are not acting on a capricious or malicious complaint.
In some instances it is difficult to draw the line between what is plainly incompetence meriting removal and what is, perhaps, the incompatibility of a particular teacher with a particular pupil, or the inadequacy of the teacher in dealing with a certain type of pupil. Some teachers are good at teaching less academically able children and others are better at teaching the academically able. A teacher may be incompetent when dealing with one type of child and able with another. In those circumstances, it is unreasonable to impose the ultimate sanction of dismissal upon such a person.
What is needed is a system that allows the teacher to be guided into the area of teaching of which he or she is most capable, to the satisfaction of the authority and to the betterment of the education of children. The House should amend what is a relatively recent provision of the law only on much better evidence than that which has been produced.

Mr. Allan Stewart: The 1980 Act was simply a consolidation measure. Essentially, the law has been unchanged since 1882.

Mr. Maclennan: I accept that. Perhaps I could phrase what I said in another way. If there were a standing complaint against the provision in the law embodied in the 1980 Act, and if evidence were deployed over a period of years that the Act was acting as a barrier to tackling the problem of incompetency, the House would have to take that evidence seriously. However, I do not believe that any such evidence has been deployed.
There are other ways of dealing with the problem that may be more appropriate. It is possible that a more appropriate way of seeking to ensure that incompetent teachers are removed in bad cases would be to strengthen the powers of the General Teaching Council over them by extending its responsibility for dismissal. That might prove more acceptable to the profession and might prove to be a more satisfactory way of proceeding.
However, in any event there are many other ways of proceeding. There are, for example, statutory ways. One could alter the powers of the General Teaching Council to encourage those who have no vocation in teaching, or are failing to conduct their responsibilities as they should, to give them up. The premature retirement compensation regulations may particularly help the older teacher who, at one stage of his or her career, may have been competent but has become less so with the passage of time. If the Government are persuaded that there is a genuine problem—widespread disquiet touched off the


debate—they should begin discussions with the teaching profession on how best the profession can tackle the problem.
Undoubtedly, the profession reacted strongly to what was seen as an attack on its rights. In a way, that reflected a failure to understand the peculiar position of the teacher. The teaching profession is vulnerable to criticism, because almost every member of the public comes into contact with teachers. Many people have experience of teachers whom they do not like. Many people feel disappointed that their children are not making the sort of progress in school that they would like. Naturally, they feel that, in part, the blame must be attributed to the teacher. That being so, it is reasonable: to consider how to protect the teacher from unfair criticism.
Somewhat different procedures from those that are available to the industrial employee under the Employment Protection Acts are appropriate. With a teacher's exposure to constant criticism, it is appropriate to rely on the professional protection enjoyed in other professions. For example, hospital doctors are ultimately answerable to their peers through the General Medical Council. They enjoy a degree of security comparable with that of teachers, for similar reasons. General practitioners are notionally self-employed, so are not subject to those procedures. Judges are removable only by Act of Parliament, so perhaps their position is unique. The case has not been made out for abandoning the procedures embodied in the 1980 Act.
In so far as the new clause has led to discursive discussion of the general question it has served a useful purpose, but it would have been preferable had the debate followed an exchange with the teaching profession and perhaps a more extensive explanation from COSLA of why it felt that it was appropriate to move in that way. An adequate case has not been made out for the House to act on. Had the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East decided to press the new clause to a Division, I should have opposed it.

Mr. William McKelvey: I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart) for some justification of the new clause, but his introduction was no more than a shabby backroom effort to introduce the proposal at this time. He should have introcuced it in Committee. His excuses for not doing so are lamentable and do him no justice.
I confess that I felt that the hon. Gentleman may have been used as a pawn by the Minister, who, from an attic window in Edinburgh, North, like a modern Svengali, had exuded an influence over someone whom I had considered to be a humane member of the Conservative Party. My, what we learn from debates.
The hon. Gentleman's excuses for attempting to introduce this awful piece of legislation were confused by the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson), who suggested that there may have been a massive Machiavellian plot induced by a member of Labour-controlled COSLA, who threw the idea into the air, hoping that it would bounce around and eventually fall into willing hands, presumably of an Opposition Member, who would produce it to the House in a seedy fashion. That is ludicrous. However, the hon. Gentleman's remarks gave me an insight into how the proposal came about.
Possibly the measure was deemed too unimportant to be raised in Committee, or possibly Conservative

Members were instructed by the Whip that they should talk as little as possible and certainly not introduce controversial measures. Unacceptable as that is, one could perhaps understand it, but I believe that the matter is even more insidious. We learn that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East was accused by the EIS of contemplating the measure, but he nevertheless went on to introduce it, so it cannot be said that he had not thought about it. Why, then, did he introduce it at this time?
The key to that perhaps lies in his own statement that, having tabled the amendment, the first thing that he did was to inform the press, rather than any of the bodies that had an interest in the matter. He did not go to the chairman of COSLA and say that he had introduced the measure that COSLA sought, or to the EIS, or to any of the school teacher unions to tell them what he intended to do. He went to the press. The hon. Gentleman nods. That is the key to the matter. All of us are tempted from time to time, irrespective of the merits of the case, to run to the press because we seek publicity in some form or other.

Mr. Maxton: Not George.

Mr. McKelvey: I looked in the direction of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) quite inadvertently at that point.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I should point out, first, that I met COSLA on the last day of the Committee. That was when discussion about putting down an amendment on Report took place. Secondly, I informed the press in order to put across the important point, which was correctly reported, that the amendment would be introduced so that the matter could be discussed and that I was not committed to pressing it to a Division.

Mr. McKelvey: That may be. Nevertheless, it strikes me as somewhat unusual, and it seems a somewhat tenuous argument, for the hon. Gentleman to say that he met COSLA on the last day of the Committee, thus rendering it impossible to raise a matter that could have been dealt with during the previous 26 sittings. However, people may judge that explanation for themselves.
The potential consequences of the new clause are serious. Teachers could be dismissed by a simple majority of an education authority, rather than the two-thirds at present required, and they would lose the right for their defence against dismissal procedures to be heard. Those are serious implications.
There was no evidence that any industrial relations consultation had been undertaken on to what would replace the provision if it were removed. In other words, a vacuum would have been left. Conservative Members shook their heads when that matter was raised earlier, but there was nothing to say that there had been any discussions with the parties involved. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker), I believe, raised the subject of consultation. Certainly there was no consultation with the appropriate teaching unions about the possible consequences of the repeal of section 88.
At the least, we should consider the contents of some of the letters from the trade unions involved. I am glad that they have now developed into trade unions. Despite the comments of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire, that is a healthy and progressive development. If anyone thinks that the progress of such organizations


from associations to trade unions is a bad or regrettable step, that merely shows the extent of Tory backwoods thinking and explains why Conservatives have such difficulty in understanding industrial relations problems.

Mr. Maxton: As I am sure that the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) will admit, the airline pilots also now have a trade union to represent them.

Mr. McKelvey: That is news to me. I am certainly glad to hear it. I am sure that the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire will also be glad to hear that his flying friends have now progressed as far as deciding that they, too, should be members of a trade union, so that they may benefit from that sort of organisation.
Let us consider the difficulties that would have faced teachers if the new clause had been accepted. I quote from a letter from the Educational Institute of Scotland, which was sent to the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East. The letter, from a teacher, states:
Let me quote a personal example. During my career as a teacher of history I was attacked by a Church of Scotland minister for presenting both sides of the case in teaching about the Reformation. Was I wrong, with Roman Catholic children in the class, to point out that their church had its own standpoint in those times? Should I have ignored the efforts of Reformation within the Roman Catholic church and concentrated on the Calvinist point of view? In my opinion I presented a balanced view of history.
In my opinion, that is what teaching is all about. The teacher went on:
If section 88 is repealed, every teacher will be constrained by the thought that the deviation from what is acceptable to the ruling party in local government may lead to dismissal.
That is important, and that is why the teachers got hysterical about the thought that this legislation might be successful. They were right to do so, because they would then be subject to the whims of a majority of the local ruling political party. That would be dangerous, not only for the Scottish teaching profession, but for education.
I do not want teachers to be subject to the whims of any narrow-minded political party. In some ways the two-thirds majority provision offers some protection. Of course the teachers were right to jump quickly to the defence of their present position. In their progress towards trade union status the one thing that teachers have learnt—like millions of other workers, be they white or blue-collar—is that any delay in jumping to one's defence is catastrophic, especially under this Government. People who had been prepared responsibly to accept redundancies and unemployment are now beginning to fight back and say "Enough and no more".
On this occasion the teachers were absolutely correct to leap to their own defence. I appreciate that any hon. Member has the right to introduce legislation. Nevertheless, the teachers became aware of the fact that a completely irresponsible piece of legislation was being introduced, and that caused concern and anxiety to many people, especially in a political climate when unemployment in Scotland has reached catastrophic and unacceptable proportions.
Let me quote from a letter from Jimmy Docherty, the general secretary of the Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association. The whole letter ought to go on record, but it is quite long and I shall not tempt providence by quoting

it all. I shall concentrate on paragraph 2, which relates to something that was not discussed in the House and which the school teachers had a right to point out.
Under the customs and practice by which they are employed, Scottish teachers are members of a registered profession. As a condition of retaining their posts they are required to pay a fee annually to have their names retained on the register maintained by the General Teaching Council of Scotland. The letter points out:
They may lose their jobs by being struck off the register because of a complaint by a member of the public or by a criminal conviction entirely unconnected with the exercise of their job.
That condition does not apply to the vast majority of workers. It certainly does not apply to hon. Members. The letter goes on:
It would be be unjust to change the rules on dismissal after the hazards of registration and possible striking off have been accepted in the context of the section 88 rule.
Therefore, Scottish teachers must maintain double standards. Under those circumstances, any contemplated change was bound to cause a great deal of anxiety, which it did.
It is refreshing to hear some of the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross). His analysis was absolutely correct. He comes from a school of which I was a graduate, namely, politics in the Dundee area. As a result, we recognise immediately what this sort of legislation and manoeuvre is all about.
Over the past two years the Tories have tried to cut education standards by dragging back money from the authorities, by attacks on the colleges of education and by cuts in university budgets. Despite the promises made by the Tories in their manifesto to equalise education, they said nothing about the methods by which they would achieve that—which is to pull everybody back through lack of finance or the closure of colleges of education.
The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East has sought to introduce the new clause, phrased in a rather sneaky and scabby fashion—"scabby" is a good Scottish word; it was a scabby manoeuvre to introduce it in this fashion—so that the education system in Scotland would fall in line with the system pervading in England. It is right that we should oppose this backstairs—"backstairs" is another good Scottish term—type of manoeuvre.
The hon. Member knows that if the new clause were accepted it would damage relations between teachers and the Government far more than would all the contentious clauses of the Bill lumped together. For years to come this one manoeuvre will do irretrievable harm to industrial relations in teaching.
One cannot lay the blame at the feet of the entire Government. In this case it is being done by a rather rash act on the part of an individual who seems to be, although he has not been proven to be, motivated by the Minister responsible for education. Teachers see it as an attack upon their integrity in presenting subjects of a political nature, such as history and modern studies, fairly and impartially.
I wrote to most of the schools in my area to say that I should be happy to visit them and talk to their senior pupils taking modern studies about Parliament as seen through the eyes of a relatively new parliamentarian. I received a reply from one academy saying that it regretted that it could not take up my offer because it was fearful that it would be misconstrued as trying to indoctrinate their senior pupils. The principal said "However, you are welcome to come and talk to the teachers"—presumably


because they had been so indoctrinated by the manoeuvres of the long-haired hippies and manoeuvred towards the Left that what I would have to say to them would not make any difference. When I met them—surprise of surprises—I discovered that nothing like the majority that I had anticipated were Labour supporters, contrary to what the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire has intimated. Somewhere along the line the long-haired hippies had failed miserably. We shall have to see what we can do about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West hit the nail on the head. He said that teachers, quite rightly, because of this type of intrusion, had feared a McCarthy-type witch hunt in relation to schoolteachers and their employers. That is a positive danger that they have had to face.
I have been looking over various speeches that have been made on matters relevant to education. I came across a piece of Right-wing political propaganda that is not quite McCarthyism but is, nevertheless, worth quoting. It refers to universities. It says:
These universities are psychiatric centres for over-privileged, under-disciplined, irresponsible children of well-to-do, blasé permissivists.
That quotation came from the book "Truman to Carter" and was attributed to that well-known Right-wing fanatic, Spiro Agnew.
I am not suggesting that Conservative Members have views as extreme or as Right-wing as that. Nevertheless, during our debates and discussions, through various speeches, the re has run the vein of a similar attitude, particularly from the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire.

Mr. Bill Walker: I find that most interesting, considering that the schools in my constituency welcome me to speak to them, as they welcomed my distinguished predecessor, a member of the Scottish National Party, and his distinguished predecessor, Mr. Ian MacArthur, who was Conservative. There is no justification for the hon. Gentleman's comments.

9 pm

Mr. McKelvey: I cannot answer for the authorities in the hon. Member's constituency or why he was invited. Perhaps they felt that he had no political leanings and was unable to influence anyone. I mentioned one authority in my constituency. I have visited several schools, and I was pleasantly surprised to learn from the pupils, especially the senior pupils, how much political education they had received. It was far in excess of what I learnt at school, because the teachers at my school, an academy in Dundee, sought not to teach politics other than the politics with which they sought to indoctrinate me. They were unsuccessful.
I hope that no other hon. Member shares the views of Spiro Agnew. Many fear that the education system is riddled with Left-wingers who are obsessed with the mission to turn every child into a potential revolutionary. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire will agree in his inner heart and thoughts that that is so. That is why the legislation is thought to be appropriate by some hon. Members. They will be relieved to hear that the new clause will not be taken to a vote, because it will relieve the teachers of some of their anxieties. On the other hand, I am confident that if the new clause were pressed to a

Division, the common sense of hon. Members of both sides would prevail and the proposal would be decisively beaten.

Mr. Lambie: I did not intend to intervene in the debate, because I accept the convention that on Report my right hon. and hon. Friends who have taken part in the debates in Committee should continue the battle on the Floor of the House, but after hearing what has been said by some hon. Members I want to make one or two points.
I speak as a former teacher and one-time active member of the Educational Institute of Scotland, of which I am still a Member. I took part in the campaign during the 1960s to set up the General Teaching Council. I am proud to have been one of the teachers associated with the successful outcome of that campaign. Not only did I take part in the battle to set up the General Teaching Council, but I am still a teacher registered with the council. That is not only because I wanted to keep my association with teachers, but because in view of what is taking place in Parliament, especially within the Parliamentary Labour Party and with mandatory reselection, one never knows when one may be looking for a teaching job again. I have been a registered teacher since the inception of the General Teaching Council. That is a safeguard to me as well as my being proud to be associated with the council.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) spoke about the representations that he had received from various schools within his constituency. Like many other right hon. and hon. Members, I have received many representations. In the past month my postbag has been mainly from two sources: letters from primary and secondary schools in my constituency, and from people whom I do not know, but who think I represent them, from the provinces of Canada. They are worried about what will happen to the future of Canada and the Canadian constitution. It is strange that during the past month I have spent my time replying to teachers in my constituency and to Canadians on roughly the same principle—that a unilateral decision that was not acceptable to the teachers of Scotland or the people of Canada would be taken in the House. I shall not say how I shall vote on the Canadian constitutional issue, but that was the principle put to me by people in Canada.
The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart) was "taken a loan off," to use an old Scottish expression, either by the Minister or by some people in COSLA, who included the Tories' own friends. The hon. Gentleman thought that he was on to a good thing to make him the most important and best known Scottish Member and to obtain the promotion to Government Office that he thinks he is entitled to as a former member of the CBI. The hon. Gentleman is indeed well known in Scotland. All the teachers in my constituency may not know me, but they know the hon. Gentleman.
Your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, criticised some of my hon. Friends for the words that they used. If I used the words that some teachers have used to me about the hon. Gentleman, you would rightly rule me out of order. However, you, as a former teacher, will appreciate what teachers in Scotland are thinking.
We are discussing an important decision, dealing with the dismissal of teachers that has been enshrined in Scottish Education Act after Scottish Education Act for about 100 years. The new clause has been brought forward by a Tory Back Bencher, supported by the Conservative


Government, although they do not have the courage to say so. After all the upset that they have introduced into Scottish education, all the correspondence and all the meetings on the subject, the debate in Scotland and in the House, the hon. Gentleman now has the cheek to say that he will seek to withdraw his motion. There is something wrong with that.
The debate should never have taken place. It should never have been initiated by a Conservative Back Bencher or a Conservative Government, because they do not represent the people of Scotland. I do not know how often I have said in the House that we have 43 Labour Members and 22 Conservative Members representing Scottish constituencies. Despite that ratio, the hon. Gentleman has the cheek to try to alter a fundamental right of Scottish teachers by a backdoor method.
The hon. Gentleman will seek to withdraw the motion because he knows that he could get his clause through tonight only if the English Tory Members voted for it—and they are all at home. As the last vote showed, they all have sense. They are not here, and therefore the hon. Gentleman cannot depend on their vote.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. McKelvey) said that before Scottish teachers can teach in Scottish schools, they have to be registered by the General Teaching Council. We should be proud that Scotland is the only Western country where a teaching council means that teachers control the registration of teachers, their entrance and their qualifications. There is also a disciplinary committee to deal with teachers. Teachers are already controlled by their own professional colleagues. There is no need to repeal section 88.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I remind my hon. Friend, with whose points I agree, that we obtained the General Teaching Council in Scotland with the assistance of the votes of English Labour Members.

Mr. Lambie: I remind my hon. Friend of something more valid than his intervention. The only reason why we got the General Teaching Council in Scotland was that Scottish teachers, especially Glasgow teachers, went on strike on a matter of principle to force the Government—I forget whether it was a Labour or a Conservative Government—to introduce a teaching council. We should be proud that that happened. We should leave the General Teaching Council to deal with the disciplinary problems of teachers. Section 88 should therefore stand.
Employment legislation introduced by the Labour Government gave certain safeguards to employees in regard to unfair dismissal. There might be a case for bringing Scottish teachers into line with general employment protection legislation. This is not, however, a question that arises when teachers face mass redundancies and when the Under-Secretary of State wants regional councils to sack teachers and talks about the sacking of 6,000 local government employees in Lothian.
Before anyone talks about changing section 88 of the principal Act, there have to be negotiations. Why did not the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East inform the teaching unions of what he intended to do? Why did he not get their reaction? One never changes the working conditions of any group of people without first talking to them. That is an elementary democratic principle. The hon. Gentleman is so tied up in his past association with

the CBI in Scotland that he forgets that workers have a right to be consulted before hon. Members table amendments that will radically change their conditions of employment.
I am glad to support my right hon. and hon. Friends in saying that if the new clause is pressed to a Division we shall vote against it. I hope, however, that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East and the Under-Secretary of State have had such a fright following the reaction of teachers that the hon. Gentleman will, as he has said, withdraw the new clause.

Mr. Strang: I wish to oppose this diabolical proposal in the name of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart). It has only one simple purpose—to make easier the sacking of teachers. It is not surprising that the new clause has caused so much anxiety among Scottish teachers in the past few weeks. The proposal has to be seen against the background of the massive cuts that the Government are seeking to enforce on the education system.
Some months ago a headline in the Edinburgh Evening News stated: "Lothian: A Disgrace". The headline was taken from a speech by the Under-Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman stated that Lothian was a disgrace because its educational standards were above those laid down by the Scottish Office in terms of the ratio of teachers to pupils. He said that Lothian was a disgrace because of the relatively high standard of the education system. If anything shows how bankrupt the Government are, it is that a Minister can attack an education authority for having too good an education system. Unfortunately, the Government have been prepared to turn their beliefs into action—action aimed at enforcing a reduction in the standards of our schools. Given the Secretary of State's announcement last week, if the Government get away with it, the Lothian region in particular may be affected.
9.15 pm
There is concern in Scotland that the Government are trying to secure substantial redundancies in the teaching profession. Therefore, it is not surprising that there have been so many representations about the proposed change in the law. I did not agree with the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East when he said that the position of teachers was comparable to that of architects or lawyers. Judging from many of my hon. Friends' speeches, Labour Members believe that the position of teachers is different: that Special considerations apply to teachers and therefore they should have additional protection.
I hope that the Government will come clean about the proposed change in the law. I hope, too, that they will not use the fact that the new clause is not to be pressed to a Division as an excuse for not giving the Government's unequivocal position on such a measure. It would be wrong if teachers were left uncertain about the Government's attitude to such a radical change. If the Minister has the teaching profession's interests at heart, he will make it clear that the Government are opposed to such a change and intend to maintain that protection for our teachers.

Mr. Foulkes: I apologise to the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart), for not being in the Chamber when he moved the new clause. I am sorry that I was not in the Chamber, because it is rare to see a Conservative Back Bencher moving an amendment or new


clause on a Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. McKelvey) said, we were not allowed that privilege in Committee. It was a great sorrow to me that I missed the occasion. I am particularly sad, because I understand that the hon. Gentleman referred to a proposal that my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) and I put forward about fixed-term contracts for head teachers.
It is nice to see such a vigorous response from Conservative Members on this issue. That response may not be unconnected with something that I have heard from my soundings of the Scottish Conservative Party. The other day I bumped into a usually reliable source at a voluntary organisation's cocktail party. I understand that, flushed with the excitement of the reselection procedure that the Labour Party has adopted and the power that it has given to the party's grass roots, grass-root Conservatives may want something similar in the Conservative Party in Scotland in order to make its hon. Members more accountable. Perhaps that is why the hon. Members for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) and for Renfrewshire, East have made such reactionary speeches. The old ladies of both sexes that inhabit the Conservative associations of Perth and East Perthshire and of Renfrewshire, East are the sort of hangers, floggers and reactionaries that the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire represented in his speech.
I hope that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East made it clear that within the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities there have been second thoughts about the matter. I have spoken to officers of the education committee of COSLA, and they feel that now is not the right time to move such a new clause. If they have not made it clear to Government supporters, they have to me. They feel—and I share their view—that it is wrong to consider the repeal of section 88 in the current context.
We have a reactionary Tory Government seeking cuts everywhere and finding excuses for cutting expenditure of every kind, especially in education. We have to remember that the majority of expenditure on education is, of necessity, involved in paying teacher's salaries. Local authorities cannot make the slashing cuts in expenditure required of them. Lothian region, for example, is being asked to cut £53 million from its budget half-way through a session. Taking all those factors into account, it can be seen that what is suggested by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire East may be regarded as a way of making it easier for local authorities, especially reactionary ones, to find an excuse to get rid of teachers and thereby to reduce their expenditure.
I have listened carefully to the debate. Apart from a complaint from the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire about teachers coming in scruffily dressed, I have not heard any grounds for dismissal. The hon. Member for Perth and Perthshire repeated in intervention after intervention that he did not like scruffy teachers. I ask hon. Members to imagine a report going to an education committee that a teacher of physics should be dismissed because he did not wear a collar and tie. That is the sort of complaint that we have heard from Government supporters.
The competence of teachers is open to question. Are we talking strictly about teaching competence? Teaching is only one part of the work of a teacher, after all. Are we talking about how teachers deal with academic pupils and non-academic pupils? I know teachers who are perfectly

capable with academic pupils and with certificate pupils, but who find it hard going when they are dealing with non-certificated pupils.
Is it a matter of how well teachers keep discipline in their classes? Are we saying that those who keep superb discipline without the strap are good teachers, whereas those who have to resort to the strap regularly are bad ones? I agree that the latter are not the best teachers, but that is not the criterion that Conservative Members would use. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire, no doubt thinks that a teacher who wields the strap regularly is a good teacher, judging by what he says about flogging in other contexts.
Are we to think, not of teaching, but of sport? I know schools, not just in the private sector, but predominantly in the private sector, that think that a person who plays rugby, hockey or any other sport for Scotland is the sort of person who should be on the staff. It does not matter how good he is at teaching in the classroom.
Are we to ask about extra-curricular activities? What is suggested begs so many questions.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) said, the teaching profession has its own self-regulation in disciplinary matters. For some time I was a member of the General Teaching Council and saw its disciplinary procedures and how it organised its own disciplinary arrangements. There is a great deal of merit in the profession being able to look after its own interests, and in some ways its disciplinary procedures are a little harsher than those operated by local authorities.
I was also worried when the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) talked about the difference between having shortages and surpluses of teachers. That is perhaps one of the reasons why the Minister was nodding about the Government support. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), I hope that the Minister will make a statement about the Government's attitude, because when my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire spoke about the Government's attitude the Minister indicated several times from a sedentary position that the Government support section 88. Teachers should be told exactly where the Government stand on the issue, because there has been much equivocation by them.
The hon. Member for Argyll implied that when there is a shortage of teachers, there is no need for a procedure for sacking and no necessity to repeal section 88 When there is a surplus, however, we can get rid of that protection and try to be more selective about teachers and find excuses for getting rid of them. I find that a worrying implication.
The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East launched a strong attack on teachers. He spoke about misconduct, responsibility, and so on. Perhaps he will join me in a related matter. I ask him to disown the East Dunbartonshire Conservative association, which, at its spring fair on Saturday 23 May, organised a competition among schoolchildren to find the champion space invader. That is what the East Dunbartonshire Conservative association gets up to. The hon. Member would do better to look into the antics of his association than to attack and pillory the teaching profession.

Mr. Maxton: This has been an interesting debate. It has raised many questions about the competence of teachers, and so on. Perhaps the hon. Member for


Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart) is wondering whether he was right to table this new clause. The debate has, perhaps, gone on a little longer than he intended—

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Hear, hear.

Mr. Maxton: I should add that it may go on for a little longer yet.
This is an important debate and one that raises many important issues. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East for having raised the matter. I do not agree with his methodology. I think that he would have done better not to do it this way, but I am glad of the opportunity to debate the matter. I hope that he will not push the clause to a Division, because I should have to vote against it if he did.
Conservative Members—the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East who first raised the matter, the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) and to a lesser extent the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker)—spoke about the competence of teachers, the number of teachers in schools who worry parents, other teachers and local education authorities. Are there any statistics or figures to show that there are more incompetent teachers today than there were in the past? I do not believe that there are. If anything, there are fewer incompetent teachers today. Those who are coming out of the colleges of education now are more competent than were the teachers of even seven or eight years ago.
9.30 pm
Between 1965 and 1973–74 colleges of education were under strict instructions to pass any student who could stand in front of a class and deliver anything to the children. I was working in a college of education then, so I know that to be true. That has not happened in the last few years, because intakes have been reduced severely. As a result, colleges of education have been able to be more selective in their intake and a higher standard of student has been enrolled.
I might upset some ex-college colleagues by saying it, but I find it astonishing that Conservative Members should vote against the last new clause, which was designed to keep colleges of education open, and then refer to incompetent teachers in our schools. They ought to be arguing that college intakes should be the major priority when judging the numbers of teachers in schools. College output should be the major criterion in deciding who should go into the schools and how many teachers are required.
College intakes have been reduced in line with what the Government decide for the schools. Hon. Members say that there is incompetence among teachers. That could be cured by keeping the intake figures higher than those that the Secretary of State believes to be necessary. The processing system should be more severe so that incompetent teachers are weeded out. That would make the system better.
If that were to happen, some students would have to be transferred to other forms of higher education, because they might be failed on classroom performance, which does not necessarily have anything to do with academic ability. I am glad to see the Secretary of State nodding. May we take it that the intake of the colleges of education will be increased next year?

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I am sorry that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) is not in the Chamber. I was just saying to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that sitting on the Government Front Bench is like being at Sothebys. If one twitches a muscle in the face, one spends £1 million.

Mr. Maxton: The trouble is that every time the Minister twitches his face another £1 million is taken away from the education service in Scotland. That is our real problem. I only wish that every time he twitched his face he would spend another £1 million. Scottish education would be considerably better as a result.
If Government Members believe that there is incompetence among teachers, we should ensure that better teachers come out of the colleges of education. One way to do so would be to raise the intake and weed out more students. I accept that that is a rather harsh suggestion, but it must be linked to other factors. It is difficult to understand how Conservative Members can talk about teachers' incompetence and at the same time talk about closing colleges of education, which means losing not only pre-service training, but in-service training.
In-service training is one way to help a teacher facing difficulties with expressing himself, with discipline or with keeping abreast of new developments in his subject. For example, a physics teacher aged 55 is no longer conversant with the latest physics developments. He is not capable of bringing out the best in his pupils. He may be competent in the classroom and good at teaching the physics that he knows, but he may not be competent when teaching the physics that his pupils should learn. In-service training would ensure that teachers needing to keep abreast of knowledge and skills in their subjects would be given guidance and help throughout their careers.
I understand that the United States operates an incremental salary scale—as does Scotland—but having taught for five years on the incremental scale a teacher has to undertake an in-service course during the summer holidays. It is a rigorous course, with examinations at the end of it. The teacher may move to the next incremental point on the scale only if he passes the course. I am not suggesting that we should move immediately to such a system. If there is a desire to raise the level of competence in Scottish schools, that would be one way to achieve it. I stress that I am not saying that there is a great deal of incompetence in Scottish schools. Indeed, I believe that there is less incompetence now than there was a few years ago. Such a system would mean a greater use of the colleges of education and the retention of the colleges that the Government intend to close.
The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East made great play of the fact that section 88 of the parent Act gave greater protection to teachers than to other local Government employees, including members of other professions. I doubt that. A local authority would have great difficulty in dismissing a medical officer, or someone employed in medical services as a trained doctor, for professional incompetence without reference to the British Medical Association disciplinary committee. Therefore, other professions are protected.
I asked the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire whether there was any evidence of more local government workers—other than teachers—being dismissed. Does section 88 of the parent Act give special protection to


teachers? If the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East claims that teachers have special protection, he must prove it and give figures for dismissals among clerical staff, architects, surveyors and other workers in local authorities, and then prove that only a certain number of teachers have been dismissed.
That would demonstrate that teachers are specially protected. I do not know the answer to the question. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East should be able to answer it, but I note that he is not rising in his place. He should answer the question if he wishes to make the claim that teachers are given special protection.
The tenor of the speech of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire was that teachers who undertook trade union activity—for example, activists in the EIS or other teaching unions—would be at some risk from local authorities. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but others who heard his speech might feel that, essentially, that is what he was saying.
The hon. Gentleman said that he was gravely concerned that teachers had become trade unionists. He thought that long-haired scruffy teachers standing on picket lines were a disgrace. We are entitled to say that the inference to be drawn from his remarks is that he is trying to get at those teachers. His targets are not those who are necessarily incompetent in the classroom, but those who partake in union activity.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that I have received complaints from teachers in my constituency about the behaviour of some of their colleagues? I was attempting to draw attention to that.

Mr. Maxton: That answers my case. The hon. Gentleman is not denying that he is getting at activists. He is saying that other teachers complain about activists. Of course they do. There are always some trade unionists who complain abort other trade unionists who do the work and who try to get better conditions. Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that teachers should be victimised by their local authority for trade union activity.

Mr. Robert Hughes: He is doing just that.

Mr. Maxton: That is the inference to be drawn from the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
The hon. Gentleman went into his usual tirade about scruffy teachers and trade unionists in education and said that it was terrible that they had ceased to be professional in their standards. He thought that that was terribly naughty of them. He suggested that it would be much nicer if they returned to being professionals. Teachers ceased to be professionals because they found when they were professionals that employers put their faces under their heels and screwed them into the mud. That is why teachers and lecturers and others ceased to take a completely professional attitude towards their activities. I have to accept that the treatment that I have described might have been the cause of the problem with my face.
The attitude that the hon. Gentleman represents would not be worrying if it were his view and no one else's. However, we know that it is the view of a fairly broad stream in the Conservative backwoods, and that is what is worrying. It is the opinion of many in the education establishment. I gather—I agree that I obtained the information at secondhand—that in his opening remarks to first-year students at Aberdeen college of education last

October Mr. James Scotland said to the students that if they kept their noses clean, dressed smartly and came to lectures on time there would be a good chance that they would pass the course and obtain a job. However, he told them that if they did not dress smartly—he did not mention anything about attending lectures—took part in student politics and started to cause trouble here or elsewhere it was unlikely that, when they passed the course, they would obtain a job. I am reliably told by people in the student movement that that was a speech made by the principal of Aberdeen college. That represents the same sort of feeling as that of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire.
9.45 pm
My hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock (Mr. McKelvey) and Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) raised the question of the special protection of teachers because they can be open to accusations of prejudice, particularly political prejudice. Anyone who has been involved in the teaching of history or modern studies knows that that can be so. It can happen with the best of intentions. I shall give one or two small examples of that.
For example, if one is teaching the causes of the First World War, which are essentially uncontentious, but one suggests, as one should if one is a good history teacher, that the causes of that war were not just due to Germany and Austria but that—not equally—some of the blame must be placed squarely on the shoulders of the allied Powers—France and Great Britain—some people would suggest that one is prejudiced, pro-German and that one is putting a point of view that would be unacceptable to certain people.
I shall give a second example. The Russian Revolution is a difficult subject to teach without making it clear that, on the one hand, there were downtrodden peasants, an incompetent Tsar and people in control who were incapable of running the war effort for Russia, and, on the other hand, that there were those who opposed and were trying to overthrow those people. When teaching that subject it is difficult not to leave an impression in the minds of the pupils that Lenin and the Bolsheviks were trying to do a good thing by overthrowing the Tsar.

Mr. Lambie: They were the good ones.

Mr. Maxton: That is right. They were the goodies, as opposed to the Tsar, who was a baddie. It is difficult not to leave that impression. If one does that, one is liable to be open to the accusation of being pro-Communist and of trying to instil the Communist doctrines into the minds of young pupils. That can and could happen.

Mr. David Marshall: Where is the Minister?

Mr. Maxton: Two Ministers from the Scottish Office and one other are present. [Interruption.] I do not want to go into a roll call of the number of Ministers present.
Prejudice is not just about the content of what is taught in schools. It also concerns methodology. In primary schools many parents of the children there, particularly older parents, having been through a particular style of education, believe that their children should be taught in that way.
A teacher may use modern methods, as they are loosely termed, with group teaching as opposed to classroom teaching, and topic studies for particular subjects rather


than division into mathematics, science, English and so on. Parents may not understand what the teacher is trying to do and feel that he is incompetent, although many who use the method are very good. However, parents may not see their child progressing in the way that they did through primary school and may object and even complain to the local authority, which could occasionally get the teacher into difficulty.
Why did the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East raise the matter at this time? There are fewer incompetent teachers today than previously. Why was the matter not raised two or three years ago? Why did he not raise it last year when the consolidation Bill was before the House? Why did COSLA raise the matter now? It was said that the suggestion may have come from a Labour-controlled COSLA, but my information is that it came from the director of education for Grampian or Tayside, which were not Labour-controlled.
I should oppose the new clause even if I felt that there was a case for it. Teachers are under considerable pressure at present and their morale is low, to say the least. They believe that over the past two or three years they have had a raw deal over salaries. With declining school rolls, some may lose their jobs, which will have nothing to do with incompetence. Ten good history teachers may be dismissed and 10 incompetent mathematics teachers retained.
Teachers have also come under pressure from Governments in other ways. We have had a series of reports. We had the Munn and Dunning reports, Munn dealing with the curricula in the third and fourth years in secondary schools, and Dunning with the examination system. The Government intend, stage by stage, to introduce the recommendations into the school system. The changes are not radical and are not necessarily right, but they are being imposed on the profession. Teachers will have to adopt and develop new ideas. The Pack report on discipline and truancy also suggested changes, and teachers will have to modify the way in which they are working. All the changes impose additional pressure on teachers.
If we finish the Report stage and the Bill goes to the other place and receives the Royal Assent, parts of the Warnock report will be instituted into the Scottish education system. It is an excellent report, to which we shall return later in our debates, but again an extra burden will be imposed on teachers. Many mildly handicapped children, who are in special schools, will rightly be brought into the ordinary system.
Lastly, the Government are putting pressure on teachers by not giving them the necessary resources to do their job.
The headmistress of a primary school in my constituency tells me that the per capita allocation from Strathclyde region to her school works out at 5p per pupil per day. That is a reduction, not just in real terms, but in cash terms compared with last year, and the figure for last year was cut compared with the previous year. As she graphically put it, that 5p per day is about half of the amount that a large number of her pupils bring with them each day to buy a packet of crisps. She does not even have that much to buy jotters and books to enable the school to operate properly.
As a result of that kind of financial pressure being imposed upon them by the Government, many teachers are

beginning to wonder whether it is worth trying to educate children. Conservative Members talk about sacking teachers who have problems and cannot cope. They should ensure that those teachers have the necessary financial help.

Mr. Robert Hughes: It is some time since the debate started, but the Minister has shown no sign of wishing to speak. Will my hon. Friend try to extract an assurance from him to the effect that if the new clause is not pressed to a Division in this House the Government will not seek to introduce it in another place?

Mr. Maxton: I hope that the Minister will give that assurance. One assumes that he will eventually intervene.
The new clause is not out of line with the general philosophy of the Government. They believe that repression is the way to solve problems. They believe that sacking people, bringing in new laws against people and giving greater powers to the police is the way to solve problems. They do not tackle the real problems by giving teachers the financial support, the materials, the classrooms and the schools that they need and the in-service training and professional back-up that they require to be competent teachers. That is what teachers in Scotland need, not attempts to sack them if they are incompetent. Whatever the hon. Member's motives might have been, the real way forward is to make sure that our education service is properly provided for. Only then shall we ensure that we have teachers who can really do the job.

Mr. Canavan: Last Friday I attended the annual general meeting of the Educational Institute of Scotland, of which I am still a member. It was held in my constituency and I was invited to address a fringe meeting of teachers. I also took the opportunity to listen to part of the debate. I did not notice the Minister responsible for education there, nor the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart). Perhaps they were afraid to turn up. It would have been like Daniel going into the lions' den. Perhaps they feared that they would be lynched if they turned up. Perhaps they deserved to feel like that, because they should be thoroughly ashamed of the shabby treatment that the Government have meted out to Scottish teachers. That shabby treatment was naturally the subject of much criticism during the debates.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), is on record as saying that local education authorities in Scotland employ far too many teachers. I believe that his latest figure is 6,500. He seems thereby to imply that local authorities ought to sack 6,500 teachers. Certainly his public pronouncements on the matter, combined with the financial pressure that he is bringing to bear on local education authorities, suggest that he is putting pressure on them to sack 6,500 teachers. Indeed, last Thursday, the day before the EIS annual general meeting, the Secretary of State for Scotland made one of his rare visits to the Dispatch Box to make a ministerial statement. He told us of his plans for further local authority cuts amounting to about £160 million. He announced an initial hit list of seven local authorities, including the Lothian region, which I understand is expected—
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Education (Scotland) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour and the Motion relating to Health and Safety may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o' clock or for one and a half hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later.— [Mr. Goodlad.]

Education (Scotland) Bill

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Canavan: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I heard someone say "The Prime Minister" and I thought that she was coming into the Chamber.

Mr. John Major: Not to listen to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Canavan: The right hon. Lady might learn something if she came in, because her treatment of Scottish education has been every bit as bad as, if not worse than, the treatment meted out by the Scottish Office Minister who was supposed to be running the show and who is turning out to be a puppet of the Prime Minister, just like every other zombie at the Scottish Office, from the Secretary of State down.
Last Thursday the Secretary of State for Scotland announced a further round of local education authority cuts, and that point was raised at the annual general meeting of the EIS. That means further pressure by the Government on education authorities, particularly the Lothian region, possibly to sack more teachers or to make cuts in their education budgets elsewhere. I hope that the Lothian regional council will put up the maximum resistance and fight against the Government's proposals. Certainly pressure is being put upon local authorities by the Secretary of State and his minions.
That is the background to our discussion of the possible repeal of section 88. It is a depressing background of savage cutbacks in education expenditure—possibly the worst cutbacks that we have seen since the beginning of public sector education in Scotland. The morale of the teaching profession is being sapped by the Government's actions. We now have this proposal, at least on paper, from a Tory Member who seems to want to make it easier for education authorities to sack their teachers.
I can remember when the education convenor of COSLA came to see us about this matter. We put many of these points to him. He is a reasonable man. He took the points on board and the original amendment was dropped. I am referring to a meeting held with Labour Members of the Committee that dealt with the Bill. That is part of the reason why the repeal of section 88 was not pursued in Committee. We put reasoned arguments to COSLA and it did not pursue the matter further. It was dropped, but, unfortunately, it has been picked up by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East.
It is important to remember why the 1882 enactment, which will be 100 years old next year, was put on to the statute book. The object was to protect teachers from arbitrary or capricious dismissal, because it was felt that a threat of such dismissal might be used to force teachers to slant their teaching in a particular fashion and thereby to indoctrinate their pupils. In other words, the initial reason was not just one of job protection for teachers, but was very much to do with academic freedom.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) dealt with that point, because these

facts, which were relevant in 1882 when the section was, in essence, first put on the statute book, are still as relevant today.
In many sensitive areas of the curriculum teachers, perhaps under different circumstances—if this section were repealed, for example—might be wary of putting across a certain point of view or even different points of view to pupils if they feel that they are under threat of being hauled before a committee or even dismissed without being given a personal hearing. I do not think that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East suggested any alternative proposals, in detail, to the repeal of section 88. Perhaps he would be interested in giving us some later.

Mr. Allan Stewart: What I said was that if there were a straight repeal and nothing else happened, what, would happen in, say, Strathclyde would be what happen; at present—an appeal and a right of representation at director level, and then an appeal to the manpower sub-committee of the region, which is of elected councillors. It would be the same as for other employees. What is being suggested by individual members of COSLA as an alternative is the right of an education committee to devolve its duties under section 88 to a sub-committee. It has been suggested that that might be a better method of proceeding. I mentioned both of those points in my opening remarks.

Mr. Canavan: I am grateful to the hon. Member for reiterating his explanation. Nevertheless, I am sure that even he would admit that that proposal would represent a substantial lessening of the job security that teachers now have. For us as parliamentarians to impose a substantial reduction in job security unilaterally would be a grave mistake, especially in the light of the background that I have described.
Ten years ago teacher unemployment was virtually unheard of, as was the fear of unemployment among teachers. We are now in a completely different situation, and a steadily worsening situation, due to the Government's education policies. To come forward with a proposal to repeal section 88, especially at the present time, would be unjustifiable.
Since the section was put on the statute book 99 years ago, there have been certain modifications. Indeed, there were even attempts to get rid of section 88. I believe that the most recent was made under a previous reactionary Tory Government at the time of the Industrial Relations Act. Not even the Government headed by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) decided to go ahead with the repeal of section 88. The arguments that teachers and their unions put forward at that time were listened to with respect by the then Ministers. I only wish that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East had listened with respect to what the teachers' organisations are saying now, over 10 years later.
It is sometimes argued that if section 88 were repealed there would still be protection under the Employment Protection Act. Of course there would be some protection. I was one of those who supported the employment protection legislation that the Labour Government put on to the statute book. One of the greatest achievements of the Labour Government lay in putting such good legislation on to the statute book.
Job protection under the Employment Protection Act is imperfect for many groups of workers and for dealing with the employment of teachers. Even if a dismissed teacher


or a teacher threatened with dismissal took his case to an industrial tribunal and won, there is no guarantee that he would be reinstated in his job. Teachers suffer a dual threat of dismissal. Not only can they be threatened with dismissal because of misconduct in the course of their duties, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) pointed out, they can be dismissed or threatened with dismissal for misdemeanours or actions that have nothing directly to do with the execution of their duties.
All teachers in Scotland have to be registered by the General Teaching Council and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire, I have kept up my registration. We have not yet been struck off, although I remember one occasion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when one of your illustrious predecessors temporarily kicked me out of this place. I thought that if the GTC got to hear about it it might strike me off the register, but I expect that it did not find out about it. As far as I know, I am still on the register.

Mr. Lambie: My hon. Friend still pays his £3.

Mr. Canavan: I pay the money every year by banker's order.
It is important to realise that teachers are in a profession where the act of registration and the possibility of removal from the register because of misconduct which may not have been done in the execution of duties is a threat to the teachers. Hon. Members may argue that it is justifiable because parents and pupils are entitled to high standards from teachers, and not just in the classrooms. There are special circumstances concerning the employment protection of teachers and employment opportunities for teachers. If a teacher is truck off the register, it will be impossible for him to teach in Scotland.
My contention is, and it is a reasonable case made by many teachers and teachers' unions, that if section 88 were repealed and a teacher were dismissed—it would be easier to dismiss him or her if the section were repealed—that would have a similar effect to being struck off the GTC register. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for a teacher to find alternative employment, because of the stigma of having been sacked by an education authority. There are still valid reasons in 1981 as there were in 1882 when the section was first put on to the statute book.
10.15 pm
Therefore, is it any wonder that I share the anger of many of the teachers, particularly young teachers, who

spoke at the EIS annual general meeting at the weekend? It is not only the EIS, the largest teachers' union, that is articulating the anger and frustration of the Scottish teachers over their treatment by the Tory Party and the Tory Government. The other teachers' unions—the Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association and the NAS/UWT—have, I am sure, sent letters to all hon. Members complaining about the clause. We have all been inundated with letters from our constituents. Many schools in my constituency have sent petitions signed by members of staff, and many individual teachers in my constituency have written to me.
It would be interesting to know exactly how many letters the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East has received over the past few weeks. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) is laughing, and I know why. He is sponsored by the Union of Communication Workers. The postmen have been having a field day delivering all the letters from the Scottish teachers to the hon. Gentleman. Oddly enough, the threat of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East to sack the Scottish teachers has perhaps meant more employment for Post Office workers.
It is important that we should try to restore the morale of the teaching profession, which has been eroded by successive policies of the Government, including the massive cuts in education expenditure, which are denying teachers the resources to do a good job, which they are qualified to do. Unless they have adequate resources in the classroom and elsewhere, their job is made much more difficult. Not only does the teacher suffer, but at the end of the day the children suffer, and they are the most important people in education.
The teachers have also had to suffer unsatisfactory remuneration under the Government's policies. The last offer was a miserable 7 per cent., when inflation was running at at least double that figure. In other words, because of the Government's policies, the teachers were made to suffer a reduction in the real value of their salaries. in addition to their being denied the tools and resources to do the job, and being denied adequate remuneration, there is now hanging over their heads the threat of dismissal.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East does not intend to pursue the new clause to a vote. I do not know whether any of his reactionary colleagues intend taking up the cudgels. This proposal, which would make it easier to sack teachers, should never have been put on the Amendment Paper in the first place.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart) for tabling the new clause. The Government's view is that in the Bill we have tackled many of the problems that relate to the education system in Scotland. We tackled last year the question of compulsory redundancy among teachers. Local authorities are free to deal with the question of compulsory redundancies, should they arise, now that we have put through the House the Teachers (Compensation for Premature Retirement) (Scotland) Regulations 1980.
Section 88, which hon. Members have been discussing, is aimed at assisting local authorities, at their request, to deal with the question of incompetent teachers. This is an issue that the House cannot ignore, although Opposition Members have tried hard to ignore it. Opposition Members spoke at great length about teachers, although they have no monopoly of concern for teachers, teacher training or professional standards in education in Scotland. I was disappointed that no hon. Member addressed himself himself to the problems that incompetent teachers present to parents and children.
Hon. Members cannot be unaware of the complaints that come to hon. Members, local councillors and others as a result of the difficulties faced by local authorities in dealing with incompetent teachers who, for whatever reason, find themselves unable to perform their task properly. Those teachers, if left in a responsible teaching position, as, I am afraid, too many are, inflict great damage on children and families and cause great hardship and suffering to children and families.
A number of hon. Members are former teachers or have been associated with the teaching profession. They cannot be unaware of the problem that is created by attempts to sweep this question under the carpet. I am therefore indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East for giving the House an opportunity to discuss the matter. As my hon. Friend says, the new clause originates in a suggestion from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I am fully aware, as are my right hon. and hon. Friends, of the anxiety among teachers about the prospects of dispensing with the special protection that section 88 of the 1980 Act provides. I am bound to say, however, that most of the letters and protests that I have received ignore or appear to be unaware of the protective provisions already contained not only in the Employment Protection Act 1975 but in the disciplinary procedure already agreed in the Scottish Teachers Service Conditions Committee.
It is wrong to argue the case, as Opposition Members, who should know better, have done, by saying that if section 88 is removed teachers in Scotland will be subject to arbitrary dismissal. That is utterly untrue. They have the protection of the Employment Protection Act and other procedures that have been negotiated by the local authorities through the Scottish Teachers Service Conditions Committee.
It is important that we should take time to consider the question of unsatisfactory teachers, bearing in mind that the new clause, was initiated by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. It followed, I understand, the advice of the Association of Directors of Education—I am glad that the association recognises the problem—which complains that it is greatly inhibited in trying to take action against a teacher who is incompetent, who is a poor performer and

who is causing damage. The House should pay attention to the Association of Directors of Education and to the position of parents and teachers.
It is open to the STSCC to extend its existing agreement on dismissal procedures, for example, to include some appeal procedure and to make whatever arrangement that, in conjunction with the teachers' organisations, it believes would help to overcome this problem. The chairman of COSLA's education committee is in touch with the Education Institute of Scotland and other teachers' organisations with a view to starting new negotiations and discussions to deal with this problem. I hope that no hon. Member would deny that such steps should take place. Indeed, I initiated those steps when I became aware of COSLA's concern about this problem. As I have implied, this matter cannot be swept under the carpet in Parliament, in COSLA, in the local authorities, in the EIS or anywhere else.
The negotiations are going ahead. I hope that they will reach a conclusion that will satisfy both sides in the negotiations as well as hon. Members and those in Scotland who are deeply concerned about this problem.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I am interested to hear that the negotiations are taking place. If they reach a satisfactory conclusion, will section 88 have to go? If so, what initiative have the Government taken to ensure that such action is taken properly?

Mr. Fletcher: First, we wish to ensure that negotiations take place. As long as the Government believe that section 88 should remain in the 1980 Act, there will be no incentive for proper negotiations. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East has kindly agreed to withdraw his new clause. It is right that he should do so. However, the Government will take a keen interest in the negotiations with a possible view to tabling an amendment in the other place that will enable section 88 to be repealed within a time scale—which might mean including in the amendment a commencement date some months hence—whereby there would be no excuse for either side in the negotiations not to satisfy those interested in education in Scotland, the House and themselves that a proper procedure will exist for dealing with incompetent teachers.
We have plenty of evidence that such teachers exist. Indeed, we have such evidence from teachers' associations. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the House to give every encouragement and incentive to both sides in the negotiations in order that they should endeavour to reach proper and sensible conclusions that will represent a step forward and an advance for educational standards in Scotland.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: Most of this lengthy debate has concentrated on the timing of the tabling of the new clause. It was only in the Minister's closing remarks that we gained some information about the Government's intentions. When the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart) spoke, there was no sign that there would be coercive negotiations with the unions or the teachers' associations.
Initially we were concerned about the timing of the tabling of the new clause, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) said, some of us had had a meeting with COSLA officials and about


a week later we received an intimation of a desire to amend section 88. I understand that the amendment did not have the support of the majority of the political officials of COSLA. Prior to March—during the lengthy discussions that took place—the Scottish Education Department, the Association of Directors of Education and COSLA did not consider that topic. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that in the lengthy discussions about the content of this Bill no consideration was given to the matter. If we are to believe the concern that was expressed by the Association of Directors of Education, by teachers' associations and by the Minister about the so-called question of incompetent teachers, the matter would have been on the agenda from the outset of the discussions.
We know that discussions about this measure have been going on since August last year. We know that on the subject of clause 6, the controversial provision which deals with the closure of schools, about 40 meetings took place between the Scottish Education Department and the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Scotland. There has been no lack of enthusiasm on the part of officials at the Scottish Education Department to meet people who have important matters to discuss. Therefore, it was not surprising that the response in Scotland was on one of shock and amazement. It was a result of COSLA's intention, and of the proposal of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East. I realise that he quickly backtracked from saying that he was prepared to look at it to saying that he would like to instigate a discussion on the matter.
10.30 pm
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman acted from the outset with the best of intentions and merely sought to raise the matter as one for discussion. If so, the House will be generous. Perhaps it was political incompetence or ineptitude on his part that forced him into a position where, on the one hand, he sought to open up this can of worms but, on the other hand, tried to close it just as quickly because he realised that the many problems it involved would not be so resolved in the short time at his disposal.
It should not be forgotten that the response that has been provoked by this attempt to revoke section 88 did not come simply out of dislike of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East. It came out of fear of unemployment, which is very great now among teachers. It came out of anxieties about victimisation. The section does not affect only people who are being laid off or are being made redundant in the public sector of education; it affords protection to teachers in the private sector, because it applies also to the governing bodies of maintained, direct grant or independent schools. Any teacher who is registered with the General Teaching Council is entitled to protection under section 88. Consequently, the fear of victimisation, which can arise more pointedly in the private education sector, was prevalent in teachers' minds.
Moreover, a trained teacher does not have much of a prospect of alternative employment if he is sacked or made redundant. Cases are now going through the courts that involve teachers who for many years have been on what are called temporary contracts. The question is being asked in the courts whether a temporary contract that is extended over a number of years becomes de facto or—in these cases—de jure a permanent contract.
If teachers took advantage of the industrial tribunals that are available, at best they could seek compensation. They have no guarantee of reinstatement under the existing provisions. So section 88 is the only defence that teachers have against arbitrary dismissal.

Mr. Jim Craigen: We have experienced the charade of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart) moving his new clause, knowing that he would withdraw the motion, and the Minister at the end of the debate saying that although he knows that he will not get his way with the House of Commons, he might proceed through the back door in the House of Lords.

Mr. O'Neill: That is the point at which I began my speech. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East has been used as a puppet or fall guy. He was required to raise the issue. The Minister is seeking to force the hand of the unions by saying "Unless you concede something we shall introduce a measure in the other place in the form proposed by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East." That is why I waited until the end of the debate before I spoke.
My worst suspicions have been realised. The Minister has not played fair. The messages from the EIS and union officials were true. The Minister is using a hapless Back Bencher to do his dirty work. He is using the other place to break an important principle in teaching trade unionism in Scotland. He is using the House in an abominable manner. He waited until the end of the debate before he made a statement. He could have allayed much of the anxiety and given a clearer picture of what was to happen if he had come clean earlier. We might not have needed a debate of such length if he had intervened earlier.
The issue might be considered in a different way in the Lords, because their Lordships might have sympathy with such a proposal.

Mr. Neil Carmichael: I thought that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart) might intervene, because it would be interesting to know whether he knew what was happening.

Mr. O'Neill: The procedure of the House is such that when the hon. Gentleman tries to withdraw the motion he will require the approval of the House. If he wishes to comment, I give him the opportunity. It seems that he does not wish to intervene.
We have had a lengthy debate. Only at the end did the Minister give a clear description of the Government's intentions. The education world is left in no doubt that a relatively unrepresentative group in COSLA will get its way. It will not be to assist the removal of incompetent teachers, but a sign to the teaching profession in Scotland that for many their days are numbered. If we do not have an opportunity to vote against that this evening, we shall do so when the Bill returns from the other place, if it is possible for the Government to dupe the other place in the way that they duped the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the section.

Hon. Members: No.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 3

STUDENT RECORDS

'After section 86 of the principal Act (local administration):—
All records on pupils kept by education authorities shall be available for inspection by parents or in the case of students over 16 by the students themselves provided seven days' notice is given to the Director of Education and the request is made in writing.".'— [Mr. O'Neill.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

>Mr. O'Neill: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is simple and straightforward. One of the major factors in the Bill is the Government's attempt to make more information available to parents and students. Student records are beginning to assume a significance that they have not had for a long time, because in many instances the new forms of certification introduced by individual schools and groups of schools because of the disquiet concerning the Scottish certificate of education means that schools will be required to carry more comprehensive records of students for whom they are responsible.
The new clause seeks to provide parents of youngsters up to the age of 16 with the opportunity to inspect records. Students aver the age of 16 will have the opportunity to inspect the records themselves to discover what has been recorded about them. We do not think that it is a matter of great controversy. The requirement to provide seven days' notice in writing to the director of education fill not result in any administrative difficulties. It may discourage frivolous applications. It will go some way to allay the fears and misgivings of some parents about what is kept in the records of their children.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Is the hon. Gentleman proposing to provide, in addition to the clause, a way whereby teachers will be protected against living in an environment of possible legal actions? If they have made a report on a child which the parent does not like or believes to be wrong or in some way libellous, will the teachers be protected by privilege?

Mr. O'Neill: That may be the mark of paranoia of Conservative Members about the litigious ambitions of the teaching profession. The information that should be kept about youngsters in schools should relate to their academic performance, their state of health and any matters of a personal nature that are known either to the parents or to themselves. It is not the responsibility of schools to maintain records that could be the subject of legal actions. I do not wish that to happen. There will always be those who will take offence at the records. They would take offence at some school reports. That problem exists now. The new clause seeks to encourage the confidence of parents and students that the records are readily available for inspection and that their contents are of such a nature that they can be made available to them in normal circumstances. Seven days' notice in writing is all that will be required.
We do not see our proposal as opening up opportunities for legal action. It is a means to encorage parents to have trust in what will become a common occurrence in the near future—namely, the provision of reports that will be sent to employers and colleges. Those reports eventually may supplant certificates of education gained by examination.

The evidence on which they are based should be readily available in a form that is intelligible to parents and mature students.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I wish to support the new clause. It is eminently acceptable. I suggest to the Government that it falls within the realms of the parents' charter—that part of Government policy that has been vaunted and trumpeted for a long time. It seeks to provide that parents of youngsters up to the age of 16 should have the right to examine the records kept by the school, and that after the age of 16 students should have an equivalent right.
More and more records seem to be kept. There are fears that many of us will be computerised out of existence. Every facet of our existence has been logged. The whole question of open government is something that society has to bear in mind.
At school level there may be worries about whether there has been victimisation or, on a more innocent level, whether assessments made in school reports, which are not always very informative, will be checked against a written record. The parent, having seen the record, may feel in a better position to discuss the progress or lack of progress being made by the child with the teacher concerned or with the director. It may prove to be an advantage in opening up channels of communication between parents and the school. Students of 16 years or over would have the opportunity of assessing for themselves where they were going. It is part of the extension of rights available under open government.
As the Government are so keen on having their parents' charter, I cannot see why they should not give the new clause a welcome. They may wish to change its wording. They may think that seven days' notice is not sufficient and that 14 or 21 days would be more appropriate. That is something that the Government could put right in another place. I lend my support to what is a worthwhile new clause.

Mr. Carmichael: I agree with the general principle that records should be available, but I am sorry that the new clause is so specific about a period of notice of seven days, and especially that it has to be given in writing. Some parents will be hesitant about making requests in writing. There is a great enough barrier between the ordinary member of the Scottish public and schools, and that is not to the credit of schools. Many parents have a fear of the schools. The idea that parents should ask for a record of their children in writing with seven days' notice will deter a section of parents from applying, and perhaps those parents will want to be able to get at the records and to know the general progress that their children are making.
I am sure that the Minister will agree with the principle of greater information being available to parents, and I hope that he will consider making the procedure much easier for parents genuinely seeking information about their children. As I have said, a definite barrier wall arise for many parents when they are asked to give seven days' notice. It is a flaw in our education system that there are many parents who will be terrified at the idea of writing to the school, and even more so to the director of education, to say that a week on Thursday, for example,


they would like to be able to inspect the records of their children. It is an unfortunate elaboration that has been inserted into the new clause.
I agree with the general principle, and I hope that the Government will accept it. If they do, I ask them to take the spirit of the clause to another place but to loosen it and make the procedure more simple for parents who feel worried and want to see the records but feel concerned and sense that there is a barrier between them and learning about their children.

Mr. Maxton: On the surface, the new clause may not appear to have the same importance as new clauses 1 and 2, but it is important. It is important at two levels. First, many of us believe that we live in a society that is far too secret and that too much is kept from members of the public. There are too many things that the Government and authority generally prefer people not to know. This is a small but important step that we should be taking, and it should be considered seriously. I hope that the Minister will take it seriously. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill) said, the new clause is much in the spirit of the philosophy that the Minister has suggested is underlying the entire Bill—namely, parents' rights. That was the major theme of what he said throughout the Committee stage. That theme was the right of parents to choose and to know about what their children are doing.
The clause ensures that parents will have the right to know what is happening to their children in schools, how they are getting on and whether a black mark is put down against them that is affecting their progress. They should know whether that is being passed on through the school—that can happen—and whether reports are passed from primary to secondary schools, which could have an important impact on the way in which the child is treated in the secondary school. In that school the teachers may know nothing about the child, but if a report comes to the school from the primary school teacher or headmaster the child may find himself branded for something that may not be true.
As there is no way in which a parent can demand the information from the school, it is possible that such facts may never be taken off a child's record. Therefore, we must consider the matter seriously. I take the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Carmichael) made about written applications, to which I shall refer later.
As I have said, two reports on secondary education were issued about three years ago. The Munn report dealt with curricula, and the second was the Dunning report. Some of us in education had problems in making sure that we did not talk about the Dunn and Munning reports and that we did not confuse the two. The Dunning report dealt with the assessment of children.
Many organisations in Scotland, including the Labour Party, made submissions to the Dunning' committee because we were concerned about the rigid system of external examinations upon which children's whole futures are often based. Many of us felt—many people still feel—that Dunning was weak on that matter and that a greater element of internal assessment of children should be carried out by the schools and not by an external examination system.
We felt that for several reasons. We felt that external examinations made a judgment of a child, often based on one day or on a series of days in the child's life. If the child was feeling off colour, for whatever reason, he could fail. Schools that are able to assess the overall performance of the child in terms not only of his academic ability but of his contribution to the general life of the school should increasingly be important to Scottish education. Coming from the English education system, you will appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that some of the modules in the CSE examinations go some way towards such an assessment. The lower modules go very much towards internal school assessment. There is a need increasingly to introduce that in Scotland.
Dunning fudged the issue to some extent. If I may say so without treading too far on your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he introduced three specific levels of examination—band one, band two and foundation. Band one was for the bright pupils. Band two was for middle-range pupils. Within the foundation element of assessment, which was to be for pupils unable to take the other two bands of examination, there was a large amount of internal school assessment.
We should move towards an overall assessment of a child's abilities, both academic and otherwise, so that potential employers and others outside the school have a better assessment than they have through external examinations. Such examinations are a bad means of assessing even the children capable of passing them, and they do nothing for the children who do not sit them. The new clause becomes even more important if we are to move towards total assessment. It is vital that parents are aware of what is said at each stage of the assessment. They have the right to know.
At present, pupils leave secondary school at three levels, as Dunning to some extent said. First, there are those who stay on to do highers, which are the equivalent of A-levels. If they pass, they can go on to higher education. There are then those who sit O-grades and go on to further education, craft courses, apprenticeships or other training. However, only about 30 per cent. of pupils in Scottish schools sit O-grades and highers. About 70 per cent. leave school with only one or two O-levels, which are of no use to them.

Mr. George Robertson: O-grades, and I have six.

Mr. Maxton: By no means all the 70 per cent. are incapable of obtaining employment, except under this Government. Most seek employment. How can a potential employer assess their abilities? Most school leavers give the name of their secondary school. [Interruption.] I am having difficulty with off-stage noises. I admit that I am an actor. An employer who is interested in a youngster's application writes to the school to ask about him.
11 pm
The child's whole future may ultimately depend upon what the school says to the employer. If during the various stages of the child's education the school has put down a series of black marks that have never been able to be challenged, the report that is sent to the employer may damn the child in the employer's mind, so that he cannot obtain a job and joins the very long youth unemployment queue that we already have under the present Government.
The Opposition therefore seek to protect those pupils who, in our view, are the weakest members of our society


and have the greatest problems in obtaining employment. Although in the case of those who obtain higher and O- level certificates the employer or university may take a report from the school in some circumstances, basically it will rely upon the results of the external examinations to judge the worth of the pupil. The future of those without such qualifications, however, depends upon what the school says about them. It is therefore right that what is said about pupils should be available to parents.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the principle has already been conceded by the schools, in that they voluntarily provide reports on the educational and other progress of the child? The new clause seeks to extend that so that the main file is also available to parents so that they may go to the fountain from which all the other material comes in the quarterly reports.

Mr. Maxton: That is correct. It is the ability to know everything about the child throughout his whole school career.
As I have said, there is the important point that something that happens in the primary school may be passed on in the report to the secondary school and remain on the record. When the headmaster writes a report on the child to a prospective employer, he may make a comment about the child's character without referring to the original incident, about which he may know nothing. For example, perhaps due to problems at home, the child may have played truant for two or three months during his primary school years. He may never have done so again throughout the rest of his school career, but it will be on the record. If, however, the parent sees a report containing a comment such as "poor attendance record at school", he will have no idea when the incident in question occurred.
There is, therefore, a need in the case of this group of children—they are by far the majority of children leaving Scottish schools—who do not have examination results on which to rely and for whom the school's assessment is very important, for parents to know exactly what is on the record, so that if they wish to challenge something they are in a position to do so and to have it taken off the record. I believe that that right must eventually follow if the new clause is passed, so that parents will have the right to have expunged from the record things that they know and can prove to be incorrect.
In conclusion, I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove. I said that I would return to this point. I believe that there are some parents—certainly some of my constituents in Castlemilk—who will have difficulty in going through the procedure of writing to the director of education, and so on, unless we ensure that the schools are aware of this and lay down their own procedures so that it may be done. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire has taken my hon. Friend's point on board, and I hope that if the Government accept it the Bill will be amended accordingly in another place.
I therefore give my wholehearted support to the new clause. It is long overdue. It is necessary in educational terms. It is also, as I said at the beginning, a small step towards breaking down the barriers of secrecy that exist in our society.

Mr. Foulkes: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) for

disturbing him slightly during his speech. I assure him that the disturbance was not unconnected with the progress of the Bill.
I also welcome you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the Chair. We are glad that Mr. Speaker has seen fit to bring in the night shift.
The new clause is significant in two ways. First, it is one of 11 new clauses that have been selected which attempt to put a little bit of flesh, meat or solidity into the Bill. It is a scrawny Bill which cannot stand alongside the Education Acts that we have passed over the years. It is one of the most amazingly despicable Bills introduced by any Government. I compared it earlier with the 1908 Act, which introduced social services in our schools, meals, nurseries, medical examination and superannuation for teachers. That was a reforming Act—

Mr. Maxton: I think that that was the Act that got rid of pupil teachers.

Mr. Foulkes: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Wetherill): Order. I do not think that we need go back to previous Acts. We are now discussing whether records should be available for inspection by parents and students. Perhaps we can return to that matter.

Mr. Foulkes: I accept your correction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and your putting me on the correct line.
The new clause is one of a number that we have tabled to make the Bill a more substantial piece of legislation, along the lines of the 1908 Act or the 1918 Act, which introduced free secondary education and raised the school leaving age. This puny Bill is one of privilege and prejudice. I shall not dwell on that aspect any longer as I do not want to test your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill), the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart have pointed out, we are testing the Government's sincerity about the parents' charter. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) knows only too well the importance of parental involvement. We have been trying to elicit from the Government whether they will go beyond what they have introduced in the Bill, which allegedly is a parents' charter. The Government are suggesting that parents should be able to send their children to another school or perhaps have the choice of another school within a given area, but that is a totally illusory choice when they are giving no additional funds for parents to send their children to such schools.
That is the only element of parents' rights that the Government have conceded. In Committee we suggested parental representation on the examination boards, but Conservative Members voted down our proposal. We suggested parental involvement in the appointment of head teachers, and they voted that down. We suggested more powers for the schools councils, on which parents are represented, and they voted that down. Today we suggest in a later amendment more authority for parents by making parent-teacher associations mandatory.
All these suggestions test the Government about the statements that they are making around the country—all this "blah"—and, my goodness, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr.


Fletcher), is the "blah" expert. We have tested the Minister by putting down amendments, and he is unwilling to accept them.
I have been listening carefully to the debate. I find the arguments that have been put forward immensely convincing. I have not heard some of them previously. They have convinced me of the importance of pupil records and the right of parents to see them. Therefore, I am convinced that the Minister will accept the new clause. I see no other alternative course open to him. Given the force of the argument and the weight and tone of the debate, and the way in which it has run, I cannot see any other course open to the Minister.
I am waiting expectantly for the Minister to jump up during my speech—because he has probably heard enough from me and from others—and say "We accept the force of the argument and we shall accept the new clause, and we can get on to the next one." It seems that the Minister does not intend to do that. I am disappointed. However, it allows me to continue to speak about the record files.
Records are a useful tool for teachers. It has been difficult in the past for teachers to make rough notes on their own scraps of paper to keep an understanding about the progress of a pupil. Pupils in primary schools will go on from one teacher to another. There needs to be some systematised way of passing on information. I have looked at the blank files. They are very well designed files and very comprehensive about pupil's attainments. It is an efficient and effective way of proceeding. With all the heads that appear on the files, I can see no heading under which a teacher would or should be embarrassed, concerned or fearful in any way of revealing information to parents.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is there not a possibility that if the files were made available it would create an atmosphere in the teaching profession in which teachers would be likely to be more precise in the accuracy of the information? By not making the files freely available, there is a possibility that they will be treated without the seriousness that the subject demands.

Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend has raised a good point. If the teacher is aware that parents have a right to look at the files, he will think very carefully about what he puts into them, particularly to ensure their accuracy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart said, one of the prime purposes of parents seeing files is to check their accuracy and to make sure that what ought to be factual comments are in fact factual.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend will be aware that, as Members, we are often approached by constituents who bring to us complaints about the inaccuracy of information that is lodged in official documents, and which invariably leads to their being penalised somewhere in the system. Therefore, it is crucial that whatever evidence or information is available in official reports, of whatever nature it may be, it is precise. This is a way of establishing that in principle for education.

Mr. Foulkes: That is an important point. I can give an example, using fictitious names. A constituent of mine came to see me because after receiving his income tax codings in his own name for a while—I shall call him Mr.

Hawkins—he suddenly began receiving them in the name of a Mrs.Brown of the same address. He had changed neither his name nor his sex. Such inaccuracies arise. That example is not an exact parallel of what might happen with pupils' records, but it shows that inaccuracies can arise.
Employers will be one of the principal recipients of information from these files. Therefore, in the long run, the whole career of a pupil can depend upon the accuracy or otherwise of what is included in the file. I hope that all of us see this as a matter of great importance.
11.15 pm
It has been hinted—no more than that—in certain quarters that some teachers might include on the files the fact that a pupil had participated in an employment march, in the Faslane demonstration—

Mr. McKelvey: Or had Communist tendencies.

Mr. Foulkes: —or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr.McKelvey) said, it might be put down that a pupil seemed to have Communist tendencies.

Mr. Canavan: And was scruffy, too.

Mr. Foulkes: Indeed, as my hon. Friend says, if the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) was one of the teachers involved in keeping the pupil records, he might put down that the pupil had a scruffy appearance, albeit that the Secretary of State for Industry gets away with that from time to time. But that is a different matter. All of these things can be written into the files and as a record of his school career are irrelevant to the pupil's ability, aptitude and capacity for doing a particular job.
My hon. Friends on the Front Bench have raised an important issue. In the light of the overwhelming arguments put forward by the Opposition—that this is not a major political issue, that it will not cause immeasurable problems either in the Scottish Education Department or among local authorities, and that it will not involve great additional expenditure on staff, in fact, will not involve any expenditure—I find it amazing that the Under-Secretary of State will not accept the new clause. It shows the House that he has little ability to accept rational arguments and does not seem to have the flexibility and understanding to say "It is a good case. I will accept it and let us get on to the next debate". As he has not, we shall continue.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I am becoming extremely worried at this early stage of our debates on the Bill at the way in which the Government are treating the House. This is the second new clause on which I have sat through the full debate. I am perturbed that this is yet another occasion when the Minister has not told us early of the Government's view.
On the last new clause we waited for three and a half hours before the Minister gave us an important piece of information that had been kept from the House during that time. We were led to believe that during the last debate what was being suggested was an exercise in which people could discuss changes in teachers' contracts. Until the last moment there was no suggestion that the Government were seriously contemplating changing the Education Act 1980 and removing section 88. That kind of behaviour destroys debate in the House. It destroys the Government's credibility and makes it difficult for the House to make


progress when we are not being told, even by a nod of the head, whether the Government wish to accept a new clause.
When I first read the new clause, it seemed to demand universal support. In my innocence I thought that it was aimed at the possibility of open government and allowing parents to have access to teachers' records or records of any sort in the education department on their children. When I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton)—I hope that he will not take this amiss—I wondered what had happened to the teaching profession between the last debate and this one. In the previous debate we were defending the teaching profession for all its good works, but my hon. Friend almost gave the impression that teachers were keeping all kinds of inaccurate records, which were passed from primary school through to secondary school, containing information that teachers had not bothered to check and which was damaging to children's careers.

Mr. Maxton: If I gave that impression, I must apologise to my hon. Friend and the teaching profession. But the reports do not contain only what teachers have said. They may include what the police or social workers have said, and even hearsay. Perhaps something that another child has passed on goes into the records. I accept that teachers should check the records as far as they can, but they are busy people and they are human. Most of them are competent, but they make mistakes in what is a busy life.

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend is reinforcing the point. I was suggesting, not that teachers were maliciously keeping inaccurate records, but simply that they were keeping inaccurate records. There should be nothing on any pupil's file put there by a teacher, or by a social worker through the school secretary or headmaster, that is not checked. We accept that records must be kept, but they should be properly checked.
It has been said that one of the important aspects of the availability of records is that information that they contain can be challenged. We have heard of the difficulty that might arise if records contained items that could be regarded as libellous. People should have the right to see the records. If they contain information that is wrong, it should be challenged in court, though not necessarily in libel actions, to make certain that it is taken off the record.
One of the difficulties is that the people whom we want to see the records are often parents who are scared, for one reason or another, to see them. I am not so bothered about the articulate middle-class parent who takes an active interest in his children, because the chances are that such a parent will have an active involvement in the school, and as a result of that regular contact with the school any pieces of information will be checked with him or her.
Indeed, that applies to the active parent in any class of society. It is not only articulate middle-class parents who have an interest in their children. I should be careful about this. I know many working-class parents who perhaps would not be regarded as articulate in the sense of being verbally fluent, but who can express themselves. They may not be well educated, having left school at an early age, and they are working-class to the core, but they often have an active interest in their children's education.
The parent who is not so directly involved with the school is the most likely to suffer. The sad truth is that

when a teacher wishes to discuss a pupil's future education, well-being or behaviour with a parent and asks to see the parent, the parent may not turn up. That may be for all sorts of reasons, such as work difficulties, or simply because the parent does not know what it is all about. It is the child whose parent has lack of contact who has most to fear from inaccuracies in the records.
Equally important sometimes is not so much what appears on the record, but what parents think appears on the record. I would not hazard a guess about how many parents have told hon. Members that Johnny has not got a job because his pass teacher did not like him. There is no check, because records are not made available in many instances. The problem may not be so prevalent now, because selection has largely disappeared from schools. When selection took place, many pupils and parents went through life with a chip on their shoulders that Johnny would have got a proper transfer if only the teacher had put in a good word for him. It is a question of trust.
I wish to discuss whether the challenge should be made in writing or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Carmichael) suggests, verbally. This is a difficult issue. Many parents are put off if they have to write a letter. That problem can be overcome if the parents have contact with the schools council, which should be able to give advice on putting the matter in writing. The answer might be a simple form that the parent has only to sign. The difficulty with "verbals" is that a parent who is not sure how to proceed may express to a teacher his or her desire to see the record. A teacher who is unwilling to make the record available will reply that the parent should see the head teacher. The parent screws up the courage to see the head teacher, only to find a similar unwillingness to make the record available.
The parent might be told that the best course is to see the deputy director of education, who, 99 times out of 100, will not be available after 5 pm. This means that the parent, if working, will have to get time off to see the deputy director. Where the request is made orally, many barriers can be erected to prevent parents from seeing the record. A parent who went to the school with the firm intention of asking to see the record might be talked out of the idea by a teacher or even by the school secretary. It would be preferable if the request were made in writing, construed and defined as a simple form made available through the schools council and directors of education.
My only further concern about the new clause is a matter of detail and not of principle. The clause proposes that seven days notice should be given. Why is a period of seven days specified? One would not expect a parent to demand to see records in the middle of classes, but a reasonable time is surely all that is necessary. If the implication is that records have been kept secretly and inaccurately and for a purpose that is not conducive to the good of the child, it is the fact that secret societies can alter records. If we are saying that people have an absolute right to see the records, they should be made available at 24 hours' notice. If there is no pressure on the record-keeper, they should be made available there and then.
11.30 pm
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill) moved the new clause with the intention of persuading or inducing a reluctant Government to accept it. Perhaps he was a bit too modest. There is nothing wrong with that, and that is


not a harsh criticism. I am criticising him only because he was being too helpful. Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister will be willing to accept the new clause in principle. If there are one or two technical details to be resolved, I hope that he will at least give an assurance that the Government will put forward an amendment to correct them. If he wants the Bill to make progress, he should let us know his response and his objections soon. In that way, we might make better time.

Mr. McKelvey: I support the new clause, because it is sensible. I, too, am somewhat surprised that the Minister has not yet said that he will accept it. This is his opportunity to demonstrate his claim that he believes in free and open government.
I have little experience of the records that may be kept in schools. However, I support the new clause because I worked in a multinational firm that kept records on its employees. They were kept rather surreptitiously and secretly. Had we not, during a night shift, stumbled on the fact that records were kept, we would never have known of their existence. However, we insisted on proper negotiations with the firm, and we also insisted that the records should be placed before the individuals concerned for their perusal. In addition, we insisted that an employee should sign the record to show, not that it was correct, but that he had seen it. We said that any objections should be recorded.
At that time, as a young shop steward, my record was somewhat lengthy. Our intervention proved a godsend. Every six months I was called to look at my record and I discovered, like Mark Twain, that I had, almost overnight, turned into an excellent employee. Despite its previous contents, the record suddenly began to show that I was an admirable operator who had never given the management any trouble. My suspicious mind led me to believe that if the record had not been open its contents might have been erroneous.
Therefore, it is right that records should be open. However, I accept that, blood being thicker than water, it is sometimes difficult for a parent to realise that the record of his son or daughter is correct. Nevertheless, I am sure that the Minister will agree that, democratically, parents should have the right—if they are sufficiently interested—to challenge the record. If they cannot convince the recorder of their point of view, perhaps the record should be allowed to stand.
Students over the age of 16 should be given an opportunity to look at the records. Without placing them under any duress, they should be asked to sign the contents as a true record or to add any thoughts that they might have. That is important and it is also democratic. If the Minister is listening, I am sure that he will agree with that.
It is not only in this area that record keeping is important. Our way of life now means that all our transactions are recorded on computers and sometimes mistakes are made that may be detrimental to the individual. It is well known that some firms have records of bad debts that do not exist. Individuals have found themselves being prevented from entering into hire purchase agreements because of a computer error.
The same thing could be happening with school records. If records are to be useful, it is only right that the parents and the children involved should have access to

them. It was said that there may be some difficulties because the request must be made in writing. That might have been the case some time ago, but nowadays it should present no problems. Parents are sufficiently articulate to make their points of view known. They ought to be able to apply in writing, although if, as was suggested, there is a form that could make this easier, such a system would be welcome.
The strands running through the clause make it one of which the Government ought to approve. I await the Minister's reply with interest.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: When the new clause was tabled I asked what volume of complaints had been made on this matter. I found out that there was almost a nil return. That includes special education, where one might have thought people would have complained about the inaccessibility of records. It certainly applies to correspondence from Members of Parliament. There does not appear to be any incidence of complaints coming to the Scottish Education Department. That is not in itself a foolproof test of the importance of the matter, but it says something when one considers the wide variety of comment and complaints made to the Department about various matters affecting local authorities.

Mr. Maxton: The Minister says that he does not receive many complaints from individuals. Has he looked at the submissions to the Dunning committee in terms of the internal school assessment and the need for parents to know what is on file? He will find that there is a different story if he does that.

Mr. Fletcher: I have referred to the number of complaints that have come to the Department over the years. There is virtually a nil return.
I remind the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), who has some knowledge in these matters—I confine my remarks to that simple statement—that we are talking about a professional assessment of children, not a gossip column. The points made to build up the hon. Gentleman's argument were filled with comments about the extra activities of pupils that had nothing to do with a professional assessment of a child, a pupil in school, studying a variety of subjects. That is the most significant aspect of the record.
I do not deny that remarks, either official or unofficial, may be kept about a child at school, but the matter of substance is the professional assessment of the child. It is perhaps not fully appreciated that education authorities have full power to tell parents—if they ask—what is contained in records on their children. Local authorities normally make that information available. That is why I said that I had received no complaints from parents that they had been denied information about their children from schools.
The Opposition are in grave danger of creating a problem and then trying to solve it. The problem is largely one that they have talked themselves into. Local authorities normally provide information to parents who request it. We should remember that we are discussing the professional assessment of children and a record that concerns the education of children. Therefore, it would be wrong to accept the new clause and upset the established position that I have outlined, certainly without full consultation on the implications of the rights of access.
I remain of the opinion that there is no problem in Scotland about parents receiving information about their children from the professional assessment record or anything else that the schools have. I therefore suggest that my hon. Friends should not support the new clause.

Mr. Canavan: The Minister's reply was amazingly complacent, even by his shocking standards. He says that a local education authority has power to give parents information, but he does not seem to understand the distinction between a power and a duty. At present there is no duy, statutory or otherwise, on the part of local education authorities to give information to parents, who, rightly, want to have the maximum amount of information about their children's education.
In November 1979 my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) sought leave to bring in a Bill to establish a right of access by parents to their children's school records and for connected purposes. The Minister did lot vote against the introduction of that Bill. In fact, no hon. Members on either side voted against leave being given to introduce it. It is strange, therefore, that hon. Members were willing in November 1979 to give unanimous approval for the introduction of such a Bill, yet now seem to have changed their minds. It is almost as if they were trying to hide something.
The Minister claims that the whole philosophy of the Bill concerns parental rights, parental choice and parental freedom. He has even described the Bill as a parents' charter. If he is so much in favour of parental rights and freedom and a parents' charter, why is he so reluctant to give parents the statutory right of access to information about their children?
I hope that hon. Members on both sides agree that parental involvement in education should be encouraged. At one time, many parents were reluctant to seek information. They depended almost entirely on end-of-term reports. Today, more parents want to have a say in the education of their children. [Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) would shut up and listen instead of behaving like one of his former pupils.
11.45 pm
There are great educational arguments for giving parents the right of access to information. Employers might have access to information that is denied to either the parents or the young person over the age of 16. That is unjustified. Information in a school record is not always factual, because it might contain a judgment about the pupil's behaviour or attitude to life or to politics. It is unthinkable that such information, whether accurate or not, should be passed on to an employer without the parents or pupil being given the opportuntiy to see it, if for no other reason than to check whether it is accurate. If inaccurate information is passed on, it could have a detrimental effect not only on the young person's school career but on his future.
The Minister seems to have an obsession with secrecy. He wants to hide behind the professional judgment of teachers and to leave it to them to decide what information should be given to parents. In the interests of better relationships between pupils and teachers and parents and teachers, parents should have access to the records.
As a teacher and a Member of Parliament, I believe that one should tell people what one thinks about them face to face rather than write about them behind their backs. The

Minister does not seem to agree. Parents should be told what is in the records, even if it is bad—whether it concerns anti-social behaviour, lack of attainment in a subject or a bad attitude to life.
If there is any reluctance among teachers to accept our proposal—although I have not detected any reluctance—we should offer them the statutory right of access to their employment records, which are held by the education authority. I know of instances when teachers' careers could have been destroyed if certain inaccurate information had not been erased from their records. It was almost by sheer chance that the inaccurate information was discovered. What is good for the pupils is good for the teachers and also for the parents.
I shall vote in favour of the new clause, to which I have put my name. However, I have certain misgivings about the requirement of seven days' notice in writing to the director of education. I do not understand why he should be entitled to seven days' notice. That would give him time to doctor the files if he was so inclined. I would give parents the right to visit the school at any time to look at the records to see what teachers and head teachers were saying about their children and also to see what the director of education might have on record in his office. The Opposition should put the clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 42, Noes 116.

Division No. 209]
[11.50 pm


AYES


Beith, A. J.
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
McKelvey, William


Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)
McTaggart, Robert


Campbell, Ian
Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Maxton, John


Canavan, Dennis
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Carmichael, Neil
O'Neill, Martin


Cowans, Harry
Penhaligon, David


Craigen, J. M.
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Crowther, J. S.
Prescott, John


Cryer, Bob
Radice, Giles


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Skinner, Dennis


Dewar, Donald
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Dormand, Jack
Strang, Gavin


Eadie, Alex
Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)


Evans, John (Newton)
Welsh, Michael


Ewing, Harry
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Foulkes, George
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Haynes, Frank



Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Mr. Walter Harrison and


Leadbitter, Ted
Mr. James Hamilton.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Cockeram, Eric


Ancram, Michael
Colvin, Michael


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Cope, John


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Dorrell, Stephen


Berry, Hon Anthony
Dover, Denshore


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Biggs-Davison, John
Dykes, Hugh


Blackburn, John
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bright, Graham
Fairgrieve, Russell


Brooke, Hon Peter
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Budgen, Nick
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Butcher, John
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Goodhart, Philip


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Goodlad, Alastair






Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Grist, Ian
Raison, Timothy


Gummer, John Selwyn
Rathbone, Tim


Hannam, John
Rhodes James, Robert


Hawksley, Warren
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Henderson, Barry
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Rossi, Hugh


Jessel, Toby
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Sims, Roger


Knox, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lang, Ian
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sproat, Iain


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lyell, Nicholas
Stevens, Martin


Macfarlane, Neil
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Major, John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Tebbit, Norman


Mather, Carol
Temple-Morris, Peter


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thompson, Donald


Mellor, David
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Viggers, Peter


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Waddington, David


Moate, Roger
Wakeham, John


Monro, Hector
Walker, B. (Perth)


Murphy, Christopher
Waller, Gary


Needham, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Nelson, Anthony
Wheeler, John


Neubert, Michael
Wickenden, Keith


Newton, Tony
Wolfson, Mark


Normanton, Tom
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Onslow, Cranley
Younger, Rt Hon George


Osborn, John



Page, John (Harrow, West)
Tellers for the Noes:


Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
and Mr. Robert Boscawen

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 5

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

(1) Corporal punishment of all pupils in primary schools and special schools and of female pupils will be illegal as from 1 August 1982.
(2) Corporal punishment of all pupils will be illegal as from 1 August 1984.
The Secretary of State will consult education authorities, the appropriate professional organisations and trade unions regarding alternative forms of punishment to replace corporal punishment from the aforementioned dates.".—[Mr. O'Neill.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

12 midnight

Mr. O'Neill: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause proposes a timetable to end corporal punishment in Scottish schools. In recent years there seem to have been interminable discussions between the Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities and the teaching trade unions and professional associations about how and when corporal punishment should end and what should replace it. It is fair to say that few people in education are anxious to retain this barbaric form of chastisement.
We feel that there is a need to concentrate the mind by the introduction of some sensible timetable for the elimination of corporal punishment. In the new clause we are suggesting that by 1 August 1982, in all primary

schools in Scotland, there will be no more corporal punishment for boys and girls up to the age of 12. Furthermore, we go on to say that in all special schools, that is to say schools providing for children with special educational needs, boys and girls of all ages would cease to be subject to corporal punishment and that all girls in all schools in Scotland by August of next year would no longer be targets for the Scottish taws. For boys in secondary schools it would probably take longer. We suggest that it could be eliminated by 1 August 1984.
Corporal punishment in Scotland usually means the use of the taws—the two or three-pronged leather belt, which was supplied by a drysalter in Lochgelly, who, I believe, has moved to another part of Scotland, but whose wares were regularly advertised in educational journals throughout Scotland. The taws was normally the first piece of educational equipment that a young teacher was forced to purchase. In a young student teacher's last weeks at a college of education he was advised to obtain a belt and to practise over the summer holidays to get the swing and measure of the implement.
Thankfully, those days are receding. Such punishment is no longer a major problem in Scottish education. Some of the Government's policies have replaced the question of corporal punishment with more pressing educational difficulties. However the incidence of corporal punishment in Scotland is probably greater than it is in most other parts of Western Europe, and the problem should be considered when we are examining Scottish education.
Teachers are using corporal punishment less and less, but for some it is still the first resort, although many authorities are seeking to phase it out. Teachers who do not use the belt may have great problems. They are often regarded by colleagues, and certainly by pupils, as a soft touch if they do not take advantage of the ultimate sanction. Teachers who decide not to use the belt can be at a disadvantage, and the situation should be put right. We talk of the professionalism and vocation of teaching. In the 1980s, to maintain the right to use corporal punishment harks back to the worst aspects of Victorianism.
It is suggested that there are no alternatives, but the argument that corporal punishment is the most effective means to check bad behaviour no longer holds the authority that it once did. With the encouragement of local authorities, teachers in some schools have stopped belting altogether and have introduced a variety of other sanctions. I shall mention one or two. The first is detention. Pupils can be kept in after school hours or during the lunch break, which creates problems of supervision, but if detention is used constructively it can help pupils to get on with their work.

Mr. Ian Lang: In view of the total lack of support for discussion of the Bill, as evidenced by the last vote, is it not time for the hon. Gentleman to bring his remarks to a conclusion and release the House from detention?

Mr. O'Neill: References to detention may alarm the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Lang), as he probably spent most of his school life detained in boarding schools. We are talking about the vast majority of young people who regard the period outside school as valuable, although I confess that this may sometimes be a reflection on what takes place in school. Detention, if used constructively, can be a real sanction and deterrent. If it is not just a


method of keeping children in after school, but if records are kept, and if parents are informed of the frequency of the punishment and can be called to account, it can be used in an effective way.
With regard to other options, the Pack report mentioned the special units in which children with learning or behavioural difficulties may be given specific assistance. In many instances young people have benefited greatly. Interestingly, young people who go to such units tend to be helped in an atmosphere and environment in which corporal punishment is the last thing that would be considered as a means of encouraging them to attend school.
Clearly, there are other options. There is the old one of extra work, although one hopes that this would not take the form of lines or the ritual copying out of passages from books.
Perhaps most important of all, there is the involvement of parents so that they are made aware of the young person's misdemeanours. As a teacher, I certainly found that one of the most effective ways of ensuring that pupils did not swear in class was to inform the parents of the obscenities used by their children and to require them to sign a letter saying whether this was the common currency of language used in the home. Normally, that resulted in the parents assuming their responsibilities for the good behaviour of their children.
With more staff and more flexible timetabling, we could look forward to the better use of the guidance and pastoral systems that exist in most comprehensive schools. In these systems, house teachers can look after young people's needs and anticipate difficulties. If there are adequate opportunities for staff to get together, there may also be group discussions on the particular difficulties of individuals or classes.
All of those options are at present in use, either individually or collectively, in many Scottish schools, in preference to a system of corporal punishment that is probably the most extreme of its kind in Europe and is certainly not effective, because for as long as it has existed in any concentrated form it has not resulted in a marked improvement in the institutions in which it has been commonplace.
The purpose of the new clause is to require the Secretary of State to take a lead. We believe that if he is genuinely concerned—[Interruption.] It appears that for those Conservative hon. Members who derived benefit from corporal punishment it finished when they left school. The Opposition wish to see the end of corporal punishment. The Secretary of State should take the lead and not move at the speed of the slowest.

Mr. Carmichael: I hope that I shall not speak for too long on this matter, but I am pleased to have the opportunity to do so, because one of the first Bills that I considered in a Scottish Committee was on education. I remember asking the then Under-Secretary of State, the late Lady Tweedsmuir, about corporal punishment, which I always regarded as a barbaric and futile method of trying to control a class. I asked her to publish the regulations on corporal punishment. I do not know whether they are published now, but at that time I was staggered to discover that they were not. Moreover, there was great reluctance on the part of the authorities—I do not say whether they were Labour or Tory-controlled—to allow the regulations to be published.
The regulations were not available for parents, pupils or the public in general to know the basis on which children should be punished corporally. At that time there was no official register. That was introduced much later. I was always amazed that methods in England seemed to be much more civilized than in Scotland. Indeed, the whole attitude to education in England was quite different. That must be part of our heritage.
12.15 am
My hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill) spoke about the "Lochgelly". I have one at home that was given to me by a journalist friend who undertook a thorough study of corporal punishment in Scottish schools. It is a fearsome weapon. I got the other end of it often enough when I was at school—some may say not often enough—and it is a fiendish piece of leather. It is hard, well-tanned leather with a Glasgow corporation education department stamp on it. It is interesting to note that when it is shown to people from other parts of the world they can hardly believe that these things were issued officially as part of the tools of the trade in Scottish schools.
One oft-used argument is that boys would rather have the belt than lines. That argument is unfair. Like most Labour Members, I went to a coeducational school. No self-respecting boy of 15, 16 or 17 could opt for lines as against the belt. It would be quite unmanly to think of anything other than taking the belt.
I discussed this matter, as one does, with friends when we left school. I can tell the House that it was sore and that there was nothing heroic about getting the belt.

Mr. Maxton: Even if there is truth in the argument that boys would prefer the belt to lines, surely that proves that it was not an effective form of punishment.

Mr. Carmichael: I am not sure how long it lasted. In addition, because it was so easy to use the belt in the Scottish environment, I do not think that teachers used as much diplomacy as they could have done. I do not think that they thought sufficiently well about the matter. As a result, the belt was frequently used irrationally and the pupils did not know what they were being punished for. Often what they were punished for one day was much less serious than something they had done the day before. It had little effect in controlling the classroom. Some lads got the belt daily, but I do not believe that that did them any good.
I mentioned my journalist friend who had undertaken the survey of the use of the taws. There was quite a good export of the taws to other parts of the world. However, that export was to New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Malawi and places where Scots had gone before. In other words, the Scottish missionaries seemed to take the belt with them wherever they went.
The Labour Party was not enthusiastic about this matter when I raised it with Lady Tweedsmuir long ago. I am happy that we now have a chance to vote on it. Whether or not the Government accept the new clause, I hope that the debate will have reinforced the view of a growing number of Scottish teachers who are beginning to realise that this is the wrong way to control a class.
When one of the best teachers that I ever knew entered a new classroom, the first thing that he did was to get the belt, wave it around his head and say "I defy any of you pupils to get me to use this in the next year." By sheer hard


work and dint of his personality, he never used the belt. That man became a very well known headmaster in the West of Scotland. That is the sort of example that should be given to all teachers.
I hope that this little debate will push forward and reinforce the idea among those in the educational world—including pupils, because some of them are beginning to take the view that the belt is not the best way forward—that the system should be changed. In a school near me, some of the senior boys did a survey a few years ago of all pupils who had been belted, and then they asked other pupils in the class for their reactions. They asked whether it was fair that a boy had been belted, whether they thought that the punishment fitted the crime and whether they thought that it would improve the behaviour of the boy after he had been belted. It was an exhaustive survey, carried out by very bright boys. I am sure that I could make it available to the Minister if he wished.
I hope that this debate will reinforce and encourage the bright kids to look for other ways, and will help the teaching profession to look for other ways, in which to control classes than the barbaric method that has been used and has been all too easily to hand until now in Scottish schools.

Mr. Robert Hughes: This is a most welcome new clause. There can be no doubt that corporal punishment, which still goes on in our schools today, is a remnant of barbarism and ought to be stopped as soon as possible. The climate of opinion in which we discuss corporal punishment in schools has radically changed, not only from the days when I was at school, but even from the period of 15 to 18 years ago, when I was arguing within the education committee of the then city of Aberdeen council that corporal punishment in schools should be abandoned.
I remember vividly friends of mine at school and myself being belted and, as a result, having great weals right up our wrists, which were swollen so hard with the thong marks that one could hardly hold a pen for a couple of days. I have sometimes even seen blood drawn by the use of the belt. If it is used in the same way today as it was in those days, such marks will still be appearing.
The kind of offence for which the belt was used in the early days was speaking in class or spelling errors. Sometimes if one was blamed for doing something wrong and one said "It was not me, Sir", the teacher said "If it was not you, who was it?", and if one refused to tell—the expression that we use in Aberdeen is "If one was not a crype"—one got the belt for not informing on one's friends. That is the kind of thing that happened, not only to boys but—though to a much lesser extent—to girls.
The climate has changed radically. I have heard of children making their faltering way to school for the first time, some going with a sense of adventure, school being something to which they had been looking forward, and some going with some apprehension as to what might await them. They would be met by the teacher taking the belt, the taws or the "Lochgelly", whatever one cares to call it, out of the desk and hanging it over the front and saying "If you misbehave, this gets used on you." That is what used to happen to our children in primary schools not so very long ago.
I say that the climate has changed. I claim no credit as an individual for having raised the issue of corporal punishment when I was an education committee member as a councillor in Aberdeen. It was not I who did all the good and someone else who did all the bad, as the saying or the parody song goes. Many parents, even teachers' representatives, on the education committee and councillors fought the battle against corporal punishment in a climate much more conducive to corporal punishment than it is now. They came in for great abuse for daring to suggest that corporal punishment in schools should be stopped. I pay great credit to those who argued the case. Often they were a lone voice. I was fortunate, because I was not a lone voice but was supported by people who had initiated debates.
When we discussed corporal punishment in schools 15 to 18 years ago, it was not a question of corporal punishment or something to replace it. We were told solemnly time and again by teachers' representatives, members of the education department and assistant directors of education, that there was no alternative: there must be corporal punishment in schools to main discipline and to ensure that everything was right in the schools. The climate has changed so dramatically that many people have said, and it is the view of the EIS, that they would like to see corporal punishment go from schools, but they are not satisfied that there is something adequate to take its place. It is an advance that people are willing to accept that corporal punishment still exists because there is nothing else to replace it, but there is not sufficient imagination to take care of it.
The use of the belt in schools did nothing for the so-called hard men of the schools. The phrase used nowadays is that it is part of the "macho" feeling to show that one has been belted and that one was a hard man able to stand up to the teachers. The kind of people that the belt is sometimes used for are people in whom it sometimes ingrains violence.
The sooner we assert three basic principles on discipline in schools the better. First, one cannot beat knowledge into a child. It is impossible to force-feed children by belting them if they do something wrong. Secondly, one cannot coerce discipline into pupils. The thought that the only way in which discipline can be imposed is by violence can, in the circumstances of some of our city areas, reinforce violence outside the schools. When the infliction of pain is a norm that is acceptable, when it is proper for an adult to beat a child with a belt or to leather a young adult up to 16, 17 or 18 years because he has done something wrong, and when violence is part of family and school life, how can we expect people not to behave badly outside? That should be taken into account.
Thirdly, we should make it clear that the only way to achieve discipline in schools and society is to make people understand that they must co-operate and work with one another to provide the discipline that is necessary for good education. When people speak about discipline, they think of the imposition of punishment. It is necessary for people to co-operate, to listen to what is going on and to benefit from education. The truth is that too often the belt has been used as an excuse for the inadequacies of teachers.
12.30 am
My mother-in-law, a teacher of many years' standing, now retired, taught in some of the toughest areas in the city of Aberdeen and some of the tougher areas in central


Scotland, as a very young teacher. She never used the belt; she never found any need to. She told me that if she ever saw a teacher who had recourse to corporal punishment she knew that that teacher was inadequate and was not doing a proper job.
I hope that Conservative Members will accept that the use of corporal punishment is a serious matter. I hope too, that,, whatever else they say, none of them will tell me that they believe that the use of corporal punishment should be the norm in the schools. I hope that at the very least those of them who are the most unsympathetic to the clause will say that corporal punishment should be the last resort. I do not accept that it should be used even then, but I hope that even they are willing to go that far.
I very much like the phraseology of the new clause. It says, first, that corporal punishment will be illegal for primary and special schools from 1 August 1982, and then that it will be illegal from 1 August 1984 for all pupils. That phasing deals with one of the arguments used against us. Aberdeen was one of the early authorities to end corporal punishment for girls and primary school pupils. Much of the indiscipline that is experienced in the secondary schools arises from the primary school. If in the primary school the only or main method of discipline is the application of the taws, that will carry on into the secondary schools. Once people become used to the environment of the school and know that that is how things are done, they may well react adversely if suddenly this threat is taker away in secondary schools. Therefore, it is important that it be done initially in the primary schools.
As an education authority we were told that we could make recommendations and advise that certain things should not be done, but that no education authority had the legal right to remove from a teacher recourse to corporal punishment. Neither my knowledge of the law nor my knowledge of Latin is deep. We were advised by the then town clerk that during school hours the teacher was in loco parentis and was in the same position in law as the parent. As a result, the teacher had the same rights to carry out reasonable chastisement as a parent had. We were told that that common law right could not be taken away from teachers by an education committee, that the only body that could take it away was Parliament in its legislative capacity. That is precisely what the new clause does.
I dare say that the legal position remains the same, but what would society say if a youngster went to school black and blue and when teachers and social workers asked why the child said "When I went home my father took his belt off and leathered me". That was a common practice in Victorian days, but it is no longer so.
It is a measure of how things have changed that it is a minority of teachers who now use the belt. If a parent belted a child every day when he came home from school, in the way that some teachers belt a child every day, the parent would land up in court charged with assault. The use of the law in terms of what is violence against an individual changes. It was accepted in the old days that parents hit their children regularly. That is no longer the case. We have gone to great lengths and trouble to set up advance warring systems to protect children against violence in the home, yet some people are still prepared to tolerate and perhaps even to encourage the use of violence in schools by teachers. That is wrong.
Education cannot be regarded purely and simply as dealing with the three Rs or the subject matter of the curriculum. A school should try to help children to adapt

to their environment and to change their environment. The abolition of corporal punishment can do more than simply humanise the schools. It can humanise the teachers and give them a new perspective. Above all, it can give children a new perspective of a world in which violence plays no part. Such an achievement will do more than help what happens in the schools; it will help what happens in society and perhaps lead to a better society in some areas.

Mr. Maxton: If the Under-Secretary of State says "Bore, bore", I must inform him that there is more "Bore, bore" to come. I am grateful for the chance to debate this important subject. It is not necessarily the most important subject that we shall discuss on Report. Some people involved in the campaign against corporal punishment place too much emphasis on the issue. There are more necessary educational reforms.
When hon. Members, particularly Lord Shaftsbury, introduced Bills for factory reform, the opposition came from the owners of factories and also from the children employed in the factories and the parents of those children. The Bills were designed to stop children aged between five and nine working for 15 and 16 hours a day in mills, down mines and in other factories. Although the opposition at that time was tremendous, no one today would consider that the action of the children was acceptable. It took the lead of a courageous man and the support of the House to achieve legislation.
If Lord Shaftesbury had decided that he would consult the owners and representatives of the children and their parents, the reforms would have taken considerably longer. Conservative Members who laugh would still have five-year-olds working in factories if they had their way. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was a Tory Act.") I accept that some Tories in the nineteenth century appear to have been more liberal than Tories today. However, one might want to look more carefully at other aspects of Lord Shaftesbury's reforms. I shall not give a history lesson, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I am sure that you would rule me out of order. On occasions, the House must give moral leadership. It did so when it accepted the Factories Acts, and it did so when it abolished corporal punishment as part of our legal system.
If the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) had his way, he would reinstate corporal punishment. During the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [Lords] the hon. Gentleman introduced an amendment. Like other hon. Members, he and I have served on both Committees. However, he was the only Conservative Member to vote in favour of it. Some of those who sit behind the hon. Gentleman served on that Committee, and therefore we must assume that they do not believe in corporal punishment as part of our legal system. It is difficult to believe that they will not vote for the abolition of corporal punishment in our schools. If they do not believe in corporal punishment for adults, they cannot believe that it should be imposed on 5, 6 or 7-year old children. Some Conservative Members still believe in capital punishment.

Mr. Bill Walker: Not in schools.

Mr. Maxton: I agree. Preferably, capital punishment should not be used in schools. Perhaps it should be used for Front Bench spokesmen.
The House has often had to give a lead on such issues. Perhaps the House should give a lead now. We should not


wait until we have the opinions and agreement of everyone or until we have worked out all the systems. Sometimes our lead is needed as a spur to get people to do something.

Mr. John MacKay: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give us guidance. Will it be illegal for his ex-colleagues in the Glasgow academy to use corporal punishment?

Mr. Maxton: The new clause refers to primary and special schools. The private sector might have to be left. However, one would hope that there would be a ban on corporal punishment in the private sector.

Mr. O'Neill: rose—

Mr. Maxton: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, as I am happy to keep the debate going.

Mr. O'Neill: It is intended that the new clause should cover all pupils in Scotland, including those whom my hon. Friend had the privilege to teach.

Mr. Maxton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification. I was not a signatory to the new clause, and I accept my hon. Friend's interpretation.
Although Strathclyde region has banned the use of the strap in infants' schools, under the law 5-year-old children can, in theory, be belted when they first go to school. In terms of section 88—I refer to the case mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes)—an infants' teacher who used the belt might claim a legal sanction for that action. If the teacher, in loco parentis, used the strap against the wishes of the local authority, it might find it difficult to take action against him. Arguably, it is still the law in terms of infants in their first years at school.
12.45 am
I have children in an infants' department and I would be shocked if the belt were ever used upon one of them. Increasingly, many parents do not use corporal punishment in disciplining their children. If they do not, why should teachers, who claim to be in loco parentis? Such an argument must back up the case for the eventual abolition of this practice. The new clause gives the Secretary of State the opportunity to do something.
I end by expressing one reservation. At a time when teachers are finding that they do not have the books and the teaching materials that they need to teach children, especially those in secondary schools—who are facing the prospect of the dole queue—it is possible that we should ask whether this is the correct time to introduce such a measure. The Government are making the job of the teacher incredibly difficult by their cutback in expenditure.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I cannot let my hon. Friend get away with that. There are no circumstances in which the use of corporal punishment could be justified—not even in the light of what the Government are doing to our schools.

Mr. Maxton: I accept my hon. Friend's advice. I still believe that if we are to create the proper climate for the education of our children the Government will have to provide the resources. They are not doing so at the moment.
Conservative Members, along with a large element of the teaching profession, cling to the idea that without the

belt there will be no discipline in Scottish schools. It has to be said that nearly every Western European country has banned corporal punishment. Is there any evidence of greater indiscipline in the schools of France, West Germany, Sweden or Norway than there is in Scottish schools? Unless such evidence can be produced, there is no case left for the retention of corporal punishment in our schools.

Mr. Ernie Ross: What is interesting about this new clause is that so far none of the advocates of harsher treatment for other sectors of society has attempted to give us an idea of how he feels about this proposal.
Labour Members might hazard a guess about the views held by some Conservative Members. No doubt it would be out of order if we were to speculate on what the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) would do to schoolchildren. However, it would be interesting to hear the views of some Conservative Back Benchers on the new clause. When we force a Division at the end of this short debate, it will be difficult to know why they go through the Lobby that they do. It would be of interest to their constituents if, before doing so, they gave their reasons for favouring one Lobby rather than the other. I do not suggest that they accept all that Labour Members have said, but it would be helpful to know how they feel.
There are those in the Tory Party who believe that at one time there was a golden age of education, when discipline was paramount and pupils were kept under rigid control by teachers. I do not know when or if that golden age existed. Since Tories live in the past, I recommend them to read a newly published paperback by Paul Thompson called "The Edwardians" about changes in society between 1900 and 1914. The author is a social historian and the book is based on interviews with people who were alive at the time. It is not a heavy or academic book and I am sure that even the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire could wade his way through it.
The author's observations on schools are interesting. What he says about school discipline at the time shows that there was no golden age. He says that children were punished "for getting answers wrong", and for "speaking in Welsh". It is a pity that none of our Welsh colleagues are present. They were also punished for
speaking in a dialect in a playground".
That is something else that would interest the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire, who regularly parades his working-class credentials, when he is not informing us of his exploits in the Royal Air Force.
Children were even punished for coughing. Teachers not only used the cane—or, in Scotland, the taws—but they would slap, pull hair, and throw books and slates. When I was at school, one of the more severe and savage punishments by teachers was to put a couple of fingers between a heavy book and walk up and down the passage between the children, and if they thought that a child was not paying attention they would crack the book down on his head. It was vicious. The teachers felt that children had to be disciplined with some form of corporal punishment, rather than seeking to discuss the matter with the children or to influence them by example, or even by their method of teaching, to pay attention. Therefore, things have not changed much.
The book says that teachers tied children to radiators or made them stand for hours holding their petticoats above their heads. On a cold day, that could be a painful


experience. The children retaliated by flicking darts or throwing inkwells. Sometimes they fought back in teams or just played truant.
Today virtually all teachers would condemn such practices as almost barbaric. However, the author makes an important point. He says that
innumerable children who had been firmly but gently brought up at home experienced corporal punishment for the first time at school".
That is similar to the experience of many children today. That is why we believe in the new clause and intend to put it to the vote.
Teachers should have the right to teach in an atmosphere without "aggro". Unruly pupils should not be allowed to disrupt lessons. The EIS is committed to ending corporal punishment once satisfactory alternatives are available so that teachers can maintain classroom discipline. COSLA's working party on corporal punishment in schools presented an interim report to the Secretary of State in January. The report states:
Section 30 of the 1980 Education (Scotland) Act could be amended to require parents, as part of their duty, to provide education for their children; to ensure not only that they attend school regularly, but that they comply with the rules of the school; and that an amendment be made to the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 to make persistent misconduct in schools as well as truancy grounds for referral of a child to a children's panel".
Children's panels are excellent and may assist in building confidence in teachers that there is no longer a need to use corporal punishment.
The report continues:
The law should be amended to give school councils powers to deal equally with truancy and disruptive behaviour".
It emphasises that prosecution of parents under the 1980 Act or referral to the panel should be regarded as a last resort when all other remedies have been exhausted. Surely that would give the education authorities, the Secretary of State and the teacher unions a framework within which to work so that we can phase out corporal punishment within the time set in the new clause.
Many teachers find the use of the belt degrading. They realise that it is on the way out and that as a long-term deterrent to control disruptive pupils it has failed. I support my hon. Fried the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) when he says that corporal punishment demeans pupil and teacher equally. He suggested that we cannot beat discipline into children. No one would disagree with that. My hon. Friend said that children cannot be coerced into discipline. He described how children who were disciplined in school use some form of corporal punishment in adult life to force their will on others. That is another reason why we should encourage teachers to work towards the removal of corporal punishment.
Discipline can be effective only if children realise that discipline is necessary to take advantage of education. That is the best reason to work to eradicate corporal punishment. It is in the best interests of pupils that there should be no "aggro" in the classroom. Children should want to go to school because of the atmosphere in the classroom and because it is an exciting place. It cannot be exciting if it is interrupted by someone administering corporal punishment. We all remember the atmosphere in the classroom once someone had been belted, especially if the punishment followed a heated debate between a teacher and pupil about who was right or wrong. The corporal punishment added to the bad atmosphere and did not allow the class to understand or accept the lesson.
1 am
As many Labour Members have said, many other countries have removed corporal punishment from the classrooms and have helped their societies by doing so. In France, parents may have their social security payments suspended if there are problems about their children's behaviour in school. In Russia, parents appear be fore the works councils in the factories and are warned that they must keep their children in line. Even Russia is concerned about involving parents in the maintenance of discipline in schools.
I commend the new clause to the House as a progressive measure which rectifies one of the long-standing anomolies in Scottish education compared with the remainder of Europe. We look forward with some interest to hearing why Conservative Members will walk into either Lobby when the House divides. We shall then see where they stand on the question of corporal punishment in schools.

Mr. Foulkes: I welcome the opportunity to debate the question of corporal punishment in Scottish schools. The House has not had such an opportunity previously. I shall not range as far back into gruesome history as did my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) or even as far around the world as he did. If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had the power to use the taws in the same way as a Scottish teacher there would be a few Members in the Chamber tonight with stinging hands, including some distinguished Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "On both sides of the House."] I agree. Never let it be said that I am prejudiced.
It is most appropriate that the Under-Secretary with responsibility for health and social work is to reply to the debate. He will deal with the issues far more sympathetically than the gangster who replied to the previous debates. It is an appropriate topic for him, because it has serious social work implications. Corporal punishment has a serious effect on a child and also on the family relationship. Many of the problems faced by youngsters occur not as a result of his work at school but because of the social position in the home and the environment in which he lives. For example, a family break-up may cause problems at school. That factor may not be fully realised. Parental involvement in discussing problems can be a far more effective way to deal with the problem than simply getting out the taws and walloping the hand of an innocent child.
Corporal punishment is not a new subject. Scotland adopted a code of practice that was agreed between the local authorities and the teachers' unions as far back as 1956. It was a great step forward in limiting the use of corporal punishment. One recommendation was that there should be no corporal punishment in special schools—that is, that we should not strap mentally and physically handicapped children. When we raised an appropriate amendment in Committee, the Government voted it down. They appear to be happy that teachers should belt mentally and physically handicapped children. That is a gross abuse of their power. It is despicable that in Scotland we even countenance the walloping of mentally and physically handicapped children by adult teachers with a powerful leather belt.

Mr. Lang: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that only 20 of his fellow Scottish Labour Members of Parliament voted in the previous Division? Is it not a gross abuse of


the procedures of the House that he should seek to prolong matters this evening? Is not it the grossest hypocrisy that he and his hon. Friends should seek to make such a case?

Mr. Foulkes: This is the first opportunity that I have had to contribute to the debate. I have been waiting patiently while others have been talking. I waited while many Conservative colleagues spoke at great length on the section 88 debate. I am happy to stay all night to discuss matters of great importance to Scotland, and these are matters of importance to Scottish education. I am not my brother's keeper. I am looking after the interests of my constituents. I am glad that my next-door neighbour in geographical constituency terms, the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Lang), is present to discuss these matters.
The code of practice was supposed to be agreed 25 years ago. It recommended that teachers should not belt children of the opposite sex. It contained the specific recommendation that the belting of girls by male teachers should cease. However, it has continued in spite of the assumed acceptance of the code of practice. It was recommended that belting should cease in infant classes. That was 25 years ago, but in many instances we have not moved further forward save for some progressive establishments.
In the early 1970s in the old Edinburgh corporation Councillor Mrs. Phyllis Herriot, who was then and still is the chairman of the social work committee that is concerned with the needs of children, especially deprived children and underprivileged children, the then city treasurer and, prior to that, one of the sub-committee chairmen on the education commission, who is now my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), with myself and others, tried to get the corporation to phase out corporal punishment. We managed to get an agreement with the teaching unions that a log should be introduced. That was a great step forward at the time.
After three terms of logging the acts of corporal punishment, we were amazed that it was taking place on tens of thousands of occasions in schools in Edinburgh. The figures have gone into history. There were children in primary grade 1 who were being belted, 5-years-olds, and children in the sixth year at secondary schools. One would think that there would be no need to use the belt when children were staying on voluntarily.
Things have improved since then. We hear Conservative Members, especially those who are now drifting off and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), criticising the Lothian region. However, there has been a progressive elimination of corporal punishment in certain schools over the past few years because of the atmosphere in the Lothian region, the influence of the education authority and the helpful influence of education advisers. About four secondary schools have managed, with the agreement of teachers, to eliminate corporal punishment—namely, Wester Hailes education centre, Deans Community high schools, Craigroyston secondary school and Portobello secondary school.
It is interesting to note that the new head teacher of Portobello secondary school, conscious that the old regime was a fairly rigid one and anxious to move to a more relaxed one, obtained the teachers' agreement to eliminate corporal punishment. In none of these schools has the

cataclysm arisen that many teachers predicted. When I have entered into detailed discussion with teachers about eliminating corporal punishment they have said "There will be riots. There will be fighting and stabbings in the schools." None of that has happened.

Mr. John MacKay: The proper way to proceed is by way of the working party between COSLA and the unions and not by way of debate such as this, which gets teachers' backs up and makes it more difficult to phase out corporal punishment school by school, which is the right course to take. Surely the least said in this place on this subject the better. Let the schools get on with doing the job themselves.

Mr. Foulkes: I am a reasonable man—I was going to say moderate, but I must not use such terms any longer. I am radical and militant in many cases.
The hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) was a teacher before he came here. The trouble is that for too long I have listened to such reasoned arguments put forward by teachers and former teachers such as the hon. Member for Aygyll. If one talked with friends in the SSTA as well as the EIS, one would find that they agreed that they received a reasonable response from me when I was in the responsible position of chairman of an education authority.
The process has been far too slow. Pupils are still being strapped and persecution is still going on. There are still pupils whose whole personalities can be changed as a result of the imposition of corporal punishment. I believe that we need to move more quickly, which is why I support the new clause. It proposes, not an immediate abolition, but a phasing out. That is why I support it.
I understand from the education advisers in Lothian region that most primary schools have now managed to phase out corporal punishment. However, there are some other authorities, the names of which I shall not mention, not of one political complexion by any manner of means, which have not moved as far as authorities such as Lothian in trying to encourage teachers to phase out corporal punishment and in giving support to head teachers who are willing to take imaginative, positive and brave decisions, which head teachers such as the ones at Portobello, Craigroyston, Deans and Wester Hailes have been able to take. There have been no riots or anarchy in those schools as a result.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Carmichael) raised a question which is put forward by a number of people when we argue about the issue—that the pupils prefer the strap. He said that no self-respecting young boy would ever admit to preferring lines.
I am talking, not about punishment, but about sanctions, which we generally talk about. However, if one is talking about the concept of punishment, on which the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) is an expert, surely one does not have as a method of punishment something that people like, unless it is masochism that one is punishing. That is a topsy-turvy argument.
The other argument that has been raised is that teachers have a statutory right to carry out that form of punishment because they are acting in loco parentis, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said. If the teachers are acting in the place and using the authority of the parents, the logical extension of that is that the parents


should be able to withdraw that authority. Some parents have taken their suggestions on the matter as far as the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. If the parents try to suggest that they are withdrawing rights from the teacher and that he will no longer act in their place, the teacher will say that that does not matter as he is acting in their place whether they like it or not. Therefore, the parents have no say. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), the Under-Secretary of State, keeps talking about parents' rights but never does anything about them. Surely parents have some rights in this matter.
Before he was corrected by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) suggested that the time might not be right. Since I have been involved first in local government and now in Parliament, which is now for nearly 12 years, it has been said that the time is never right for such a move. In my view the time is always right for making such a move. I agree that we have to try now to make every effort to bring the teachers with us. In many cases we have made a great endeavour to do that. Failing that, we have to move slightly ahead of public opinion because we believe that to do so is right, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart said.
1.15 am
Finally—and that is a code word—I quote Dr. William Taylor, who is the director of the Institute of Education in London, if I may quote an English source. The Whip, the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Thompson), does not mind my quoting an English source. Dr. Taylor's remarks highlight an important point about discipline and order in schools:
I had an experience some years ago when I was deputy head of a secondary school in England that has stuck with me ever since, and which I frequently quote. One day taking assembly in the absence of the head … and during the singing of some vaguely improving Victorian hymn, I looked down at the serried ranks in front of me and suddenly realised that the minute they decided they had had enough there was absolutely nothing we could do. We were outnumbered 20·9 to 1. We had as much power and as much influence as the pupils were willing to give us. Order in that school, as indeed in all the institutions of society"—
some of us here should remember that—
depended not upon the degree of coercion we could exercise, but on the strengthening of a thread of consent that bound us all into the institution.
We should all remember that. Pupils are an important part of the institution. They spend one-fifth of their week at school.
I commend the report of the COSLA, EIS and The Scotsman conference, "Signpost for Education", with an introductory speech by the then Secretary of State for Scotland. Would that he were still Secretary of State. It contains some good recommendations about education. It states that it is important to remember that school is not only what children get at the end of it. We should make it, in itself, a pleasant place to be in. We should make it a place to which children enjoy going, but how can they enjoy it with the fear of the Lochgelly belt hanging over their heads? How can children understand, be educated and develop the gift of learning if they live in constant fear? That is not a psychological condition conducive to learning. If we are able to make school a pleasant place for children, we shall have achieved something in this debate.

Mr. McKelvey: I congratulate the authors of new clause 5.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Russell Fairgrieve): Why?

Mr. McKelvey: If the Minister reads it, he will see why. It states:
Corporal punishment of all pupils in primary schools and special schools and of female pupils will be illegal as from 1st August 1982.
I have yet to hear an argument against that. It continues brilliantly:
Corporal punishment of all pupils will be illegal as from 1st August 1984.
That should satisfy the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay). Teachers have been given warning of the date, so they should have the wit to devise forms of punishment other than the medieval and barbaric practice of wielding the taws.
I was belted at school and well remember the experience. It did not make me a better pupil. It brought out the rebellious part of me, not only then but in later years. No one can deny that that happens. All civilised Western countries have banned that barbaric form of punishment. Yet we drag with us this Dickensian or Victorian practice in our reluctance to drop this type of punishment on the ground that there seems to be no suitable alternative. If it is beyond the wit of members of the teaching profession to provide a suitable alternative, I can only say that they are sadly lacking in education themselves. I do not believe that that is the case.
I am sure that we all recall occasions in the classroom when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said, the teacher dangled the taws over the front of the desk to show the class the punishment that awaited anyone stupid or foolish enough to refuse to learn what he or she was about to impart, almost like the sword of Damocles hanging over one's head if one failed to pick up whatever relevant or irrelevant part of the lesson the teacher wished to impart.
Despite the expert knowledge of the hon. Member for Argyll, that is not conducive to good learning. Let those who believe that it is produce conclusive proof of their argument. Appalling instances were cited in Committee of handicapped and mentally retarded children being belted. Conservative Members described that as emotive sensationalism. Nevertheless, they could not refute that the present law allows it to happen and we heard horrific and recent examples. When the Minister replied that the Government could not legislate against it at present, I could not believe my ears. I took the view that if we could not legislate to abolish such barbarism we had a pretty ineffective form of Government. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) referred to the old joke, which is no joke in this context, about the consequences of people consistently being belted.
I recall even in my primary school days one of my fellow pupils known, for whatever reason, by the nickname of "Spulter" Duncan, a large, well-built boy for his age, who always seemed to be in some kind of trouble. He was not extra-intelligent. Nevertheless, the teachers seemed to take their spite out on him.
I remember the following incident because it is engraved upon my memory. A teacher who I always suspected had sadistic tendencies was absolutely furious with this boy because he had refused to learn or was


incapable of learning a table or something of the kind. At any rate, he was not able to utter the sounds that the teacher wished to hear. The teacher dragged the boy to the front of the class and made him hold out his hand for what we called a "doubler". That is to say, one had to hold one hand under the other, which prevented one from pulling one's hand away or gave one the false courage in terms of mechanics to keep one's hand in the same position so that the teacher could take careful aim and lash.
The teacher was so furious at the boy and what he had done that he drew back in an enormous swing, lifting one leg off the ground to produce the maximum velocity and momentum for the swing forward, almost like a golf swing. The boy's courage had never failed him before. He was a bit slow on the uptake, he did not have the agility of a Soviet-trained acrobat and he did not normally pull his hand away. Seeing what was coming, however, on this occasion he moved his hand slightly to the side. The teacher, meanwhile, carried on and perpetrated a follow-through with such velocity that he struck his right leg. He screamed in anguish, grabbed the boy by the hair and threatened to pulverise him for moving his hand. Such was the velocity of the intended stroke that the teacher almost broke his own leg.
The belt in the hands of someone as emotionally unstable as that could cause great difficulties. Such treatment might release masochistic tendencies in the boy, who might find that the best way to satisfy those tendencies was to be a truculent pupil. In that way the teacher would perpetually belt him, but far from solving the lad's problem it would merely add to it.
Had the teacher been a sadist, we would have had the unusual situation of a pupil saying "Please teacher, belt me, belt me", and the teacher saying "No". That was the joke referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire.
Frankly, I am concerned about the fact that no initiative has come from Conservative Members on the abolition of what has been described as a medieval and barbaric practice. There was no initiative from Conservative Members in Committee to alleviate what they agreed was a problem. Indeed, the hon. Member for Argyll said it was something that could only be erased school by school, sadist by sadist.
We cannot leave it at that. This is one of the best written new clauses on the Amendment Paper. It ought to be supported. There is no reason why it cannot be supported. I therefore look forward with interest to the Minister's reply. I hope that I am proved wrong, but I suspect that he will have little to say about this matter, because the case is unanswerable.

Mr. Canavan: The most cogent reason that I have ever heard for the retention of corporal punishment is that its abolition would cause even more unemployment in Lochgelly. However, the belts are now made in Cowdenbeath, because the saddler's factory has been moved there.
I was born and brought up in Cowdenbeath, and I am concerned about unemployment in that area. My own brother happens to be one of the many thousands of unemployed in the Cowdenbeath area. Nevertheless, that

is no justification for the retention of this area of manufacturing industry, which over the years has caused a great deal of cruelty to countless numbers of children.
In 1976 I attempted to introduce a Bill to abolish the use of corporal punishment in all education establishments. It was the first ever Ten-Minute Bill that I attempted to introduce as a Member of Parliament. Unfortunately, it was defeated by 181 votes to 120.
I know that the hon. Members for Argyll (Mr. MacKay), Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) and Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) were not Members at that time. However, the absent Minister, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), was a Member of Parliament at that time, yet his name is missing from the Division List. He abstained. I do not know whether it was a conscientious abstention or a truancy abstention, but his name is missing from the Division List. I wonder whether that is why the other Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve), is present to lead the Government opposition to this reasonable new clause. It is ironic that the hon. Gentleman is responsible for health, because this method of punishing children has undermined the health of some children. Surely no one in his right senses could ever argue that the health of children is improved by adults resorting to punishing children by means of violence.
1.30 am
The use of corporal punishment in our schools is one of the last vestiges of formalised, legalised violence in our society today. It was abolished in the Armed Forces many years ago. It has been abolished in our prisons—and thank goodness. It is worth pointing out that not even the most hardened violent criminal, who may have committed the most heinous of crimes, can be subjected to corporal punishment legally in our society today. Yet very often tiny children in our schools, who may have committed petty misdemeanours which are no crime at all, are subjected, sometimes daily, to the most violent form of punishment by an adult who may be twice the size and more than three times the weight of the child in question.
Hon. Members do not like my using words such as "barbaric", or even "violence", but it does not matter whether one calls it violent punishment, corporal punishment, physical punishment, vicious punishment, or whatever. No one can deny that is is a case of an adult hitting a child. Surely it is time that we in the House of Commons said that hitting children should have no place in our education system. That is what the new clause is all about.
The use of corporal punishment in our schools today has a brutalising effect on the pupil-teacher relationship, a relationship that ought to be based on mutual respect rather than on violent confrontation. The continued use of corporal punishment has a degrading effect on both the teacher and the pupil. I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) who referred to the possibility of violence breeding violence. That is not just an empty saying.
Some children, particularly those from deprived family backgrounds, who may have behavioural difficulties as a result, see a lot of violence—perhaps in their home background, perhaps in the street. When they go to school they see possibly the most educated person that they will ever encounter in their lives—possibly the only person with a professional qualification that they will ever meet,


live with or mix with—standing in front of them with a huge piece of leather attempting to resort to violence in order to solve a problem.
No one denies that there is a problem, because very often teachers face disciplinary problems in their classrooms. It would be wrong of any hon. Member to claim that we who advocate the abolition of corporal punishment are thereby somewhat anti-teacher. We are not anti-punishment either.
I believe in discipline. I stick up for the rights of teachers and believe that children sometimes should be punished if they are guilty of doing wrong. But I maintain that there is something wrong with Scottish education when we seem to be saying that the disciplinary system in our schools would collapse if we did away with violent forms of punishment. Surely it is not beyond our wit to think of an alternative constructive, non-violent form of punishment.
I want to put the matter into the international context. International opinion on this subject puts us at or near the bottom of the international league. I have gone to international conferences on various subjects. Sometimes the subject had nothing directly to do with education. It is embarrassing when I tell people that I am from Scotland, a Member of Parliament and a former teacher and the first thing they say is "Oh, that is the place where you beat the children, isn't it?" That is the reputation that Scottish education is beginning to get internationally.
With the exception of the Republic of Ireland, the countries that make up the United Kingdom are the only countries in Europe that resort to the use of violent punishment in schools. Austria abolished it as long ago as 1870. It has been abolished in Belgium, China, Cyprus, Ecuador, Iceland, Jordan, Mauritius, Norway, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar the USSR and all European Communist countries. It was abolished in 1967 in Denmark—a relative newcomer, strange to say—in Finland in about 1890, France in 1887, Holland in about 1850, and Luxembourg in 1845. For almost 200 years, since 1783, it has been abolished in Poland, and it was abolished in Sweden in 1958. Other countries, such as Italy, maintain that corporal punishment in schools cannot be abolished because it was never permitted.
That list refers to places where Government legislation has banned corporal punishment, but in the Federal Republic of Germany, for example, teachers are forbidden to use corporal punishment by the State rather than by federal law. It is worth pointing out that the Nazi regime in Germany is the only one to have reintroduced corporal punishment since its abolition. It is also forbidden in Switzerland, although the law varies from one canton to the next.
It is interesting to look at the list of countries where corporal punishment is still officially used in schools: Australia, Barbados, Canada, the Republic of Ireland, which I have already mentioned, New Zealand, South Africa, Swaziland, Trinidad and Tobago, the United Kingdom and the United States in all but two States. Nearly every country has had some relationship, either past or present, with British colonialism. There is something about the old British Empire. It was founded on violence, or the threat of violence, to such an extent that even in the education systems set up in many of the countries of the Britsh Empire we introduced violence into the classrooms and used violence against the children.
I should like to quote from a source from which I do not often quote—the House of Lords:
Is it really credible that British children are so much more unruly than French, Italian, Norwegian, Danish, Dutch, Belgian or Swedish children, or literally millions of others throughout the world, that our children, and our children alone, can only be educated with the assistance of punitive assaults?"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 December 1973; Vol. 347, c. 883–84.]
That is a quotation from a speech by Baroness Wootton.
I am glad that the Secretary of State for Scotland is here, because he should be taking much firmer action on the matter. We are in danger of becoming a laughing stock. The right hon. Gentleman's Government are virtually in the dock at the European Court of Human Rights, in the cases of United Kingdom Government v Campbell and United Kingdom Government v Cosans. The European Commission of Human Rights has already decided to refer those cases to the court.
The boy Campbell is the son of Mrs. Campbell of Bishopbriggs, who asked Strathclyde regional council for a guarantee that her child would not be subjected to corporal punishment. He never was, but the authority refused to give the guarantee, and Mrs. Campbell decided to take the case to the commission in the first instance, and it referred it to the court.
The boy Cosans, who was a pupil at Beath senior high school in Cowdenbeath, was suspended from school because he refused corporal punishment. His crime was that in taking a short cut home he had been caught climbing over a cemetery wall. The teacher wanted to give him corporal punishment. The boy refused, the parents supported him and the boy was suspended. The suspension remained in force for the rest of his school life, and I understand that after he left school he had considerable difficulty in finding employment as a result.
The cases have now been referred to the court, though in neither was corporal punishment actually used. Another case may soon be referred to the commission to see whether such punishment is tantamount to a degrading form of punishment. The commission did not refer those two cases on the ground that it was inhuman and degrading, because the punishment had not been used. By a majority of nine votes to five, the commission expressed the opinion that
there had been a violation of the second sentence of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention"—
to which Britain is a signatory—
the authorities' refusal to guarantee that the applicants' children would not be subjected to corporal punishment amounted to a failure to respect the applicants' right as parents to ensure their children's education and teaching in conformity with the 'philosophical convictions' constituted by the applicants' disapproval of such punishment.
In other words, the grounds of referral seem to be based very much on the rights of the parents and the Government, on the face of it, appear to be denying the parents' right to decide whether their children should be subjected to corporal punishment. We face a ludicrous situation.
1.45 am
I understand that the Government have asked for extra time to prepare their case at Strasbourg. I am sorry that the Solicitor-General for Scotland is not present. The hon. and learned Gentleman or the Lord Advocate, or perhaps both, will be trekking across to Strasbourg, at the taxpayers' expense, to look like a couple of clowns appearing at the


European Court to defend the indefensible in denying parents the right to decide whether their children should be subjected to corporal punishment.

Mr. Bill Walker: I trust that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that anyone is guilty before being tried. That is what he is implying.

Mr. Canavan: I am expressing an opinion, as I am entitled to do. There is no reason why hon. Members, within the High Court of Parliament, should regard a matter before the European Court of Human Rights as being sub judice in the same manner as a case before a British court. I believe that the case is indefensible. I do not know how many civil servants and secretaries will accompany the Solicitor-General, a former pupil of Loretto, or his pal, the Lord Advocate, to Strasbourg. Those working on the preparation of the case are wasting time that could be devoted to more important matters concerning the pursuit of justice in Scotland. Has the Crown Office not got its priorities upside down in spending time, money and effort to defend the indefensible in Strasbourg?
It would be less expensive and more reasonable for the Government to accept the new clause. In Committee I moved an amendment that would have given parents the right to decide whether their children should be subjected to corporal punishment. Unfortunately, the amendment was defeated. Every Tory Member who was present that day voted against it. Even worse, on a later amendment of mine, which would have made unlawful the use of corporal punishment on recorded children—children who are mentally or physically handicapped, or both, and recorded as being in special educational need—every man jack on the Tory Benches voted to defeat me.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Disgraceful.

Mr. Canavan: Theirs is the party in favour of beating handicapped children. That is the only conclusion that the people of Scotland can reach. Conservative Members voted against my amendment. By doing so they voted to make it legal for teachers to resort to the use of corporal punishment and to hit handicapped children.
It is disgusting that the Minister responsible for health should come here to defend something that he voted for in Committee. He told me then that I was grossly exaggerating and that such beatings did not occur. I related a case from my experience when I was a pupil. The lad involved is still a friend of mine. From birth, part of his leg, arm and hand had been paralysed. Almost daily that boy was subjected to a public demonstration of brutality. It must have shocked not only that lad but also the wee girls who had to watch it nearly every day. It was sickening and obscene.
My memories of what went on when I was a pupil are not unique. Recently, a mother in Glasgow said:
A one-handed 11-year-old boy at my daughter's school was on two occasions given six strokes of the belt on his one good hand. Normally when children are belted, they rub their hands together to ease the pain but, of course, he wasn't able to do that.
I complained to the 'guidance' teacher who had belted the child. He said: 'How dare you question my professional integrity'.
It is almost incredible that such things should be tolerated in the twentieth century.
I am glad to see that the clause makes special reference to the children in our special schools. From 1 August 1982 the infliction of corporal punishment on such children will be illegal if the clause is accepted. I am in favour of immediate abolition, but the amendment is at least a reasonable compromise. I hope that the Government will respond more helpfully than they did in Committee.

Mr. Henderson: If such things have been going on for so long, and if the hon. Gentleman is so concerned, why was nothing done when the Labour Party was in Government? Having failed to achieve his objective by the use of Scottish votes in Committee, why has the hon. Member come here with a trivial handful of his Scottish colleagues to try to use English votes to achieve the same objective?

Mr. Canavan: If the hon. Gentleman was not asleep, he will know that in 1976 I tried to introduce a Bill to abolish corporal punishment in our schools. When it failed, many of my hon. Friends and I began to try to get a clear affirmation of Labour Party policy on this subject. I am pleased to say that it is now official Labour Party policy to abolish corporal punishment in our schools. If I have anything to do with it, I shall ensure that the next Labour Government take steps in that direction. The Labour Party is not alone in advocating the abolition of corporal punishment.
I have a list of the different organisations that are in favour of abolition. The list includes the Advisory Centre for Education, the Confederation for the Advancement of State Education, the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties, the National Association for Mental Health, the British Association of Social Workers, the British Paediatric Association, the Association of Educational Psychologists, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the British Psychological Society, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Liberal Party—whose members are absent as usual, but which, nevertheless, must have passed such policy at a conference—and the Labour Party.
The teachers' unions are not nearly so reactionary as they once were over the abolition of corporal punishment. My own trade union, the Educational Institute of Scotland, is in favour of the eventual phasing out of corporal punishment, provided suitable alternatives are found. Even the Government are on record as saying that they want to seek, by means of negotiation, to achieve the abolition of corporal punishment in schools.
It is interesting to note that as long ago as 1968 there was a statement of principles and a code of conduct that were supposed to lead to the eventual phasing out of corporal punishment in schools. In Committee the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North, did not absolutely oppose my amendment in principle in his speech, although he voted against it. He did make some polite noises. He referred to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities having set up a working party on alternatives to corporal punishment and he referred also to the consultations that were going on. He said:
it would have to be the subject of wider consultation. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman"—
that is me—
is aware of the steps currently being taken on these serious and important matters. I hope that by the end of this year we shall be able to make some decisions, once we have benefited from the advice of parents, teachers, local authorities and others concerned with these matters."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 24 March 1981; c. 294–95.]


The Minister then referred to the interim report on responsibilities and duties of parents by a working group of COSLA, which was available to the Committee.
The Government do not appear to be opposed in principle to this proposition and I hope that we shall receive a more constructive response this evening. We have moved, too. We have said that, instead of going for immediate abolition, we should set two deadlines. The first is next year for children in primary and special schools, and for girls. The second deadline is 1 August 1984, and applies to all other pupils. This will give time for consultations to take place. It will also enable a better atmosphere to be created in which the consultations can take place. They have been going on since 1968 and there has been much dragging of feet. Little progress has been made. If we decide to set these deadlines it will concentrate the minds of those involved in the consultations. It is 13 years since the statement of principles and the code of conduct were published. They did not have statutory backing. In a sense, the code of practice is purely voluntary, although some education authorities have made it mandatory. Nevertheless, it does not have the backing of an Act or a statutory instrument.
2 am
There may have been some improvements in some areas, even in the time since I introduced my Bill in 1976. People tend to scoff at Ten-Minute Bills, saying that they never reach the statute book, but they can help to form public opinion outside the House. In 1976 there was more hostility towards me and my Bill than there is now. For example, in both the schools that my children attend—one a primary school, and the other a secondary school at which I formerly taught—the incidence of corporal punishment is less now than it was even five years ago. I do not claim complete responsibility for that, but by attempting to introduce Private Member's legislation and by having a debate such as this Parliament can give a lead to public opinion, instead of following slavishly in the wake of popular opinion, as some phoney populist hon. Members do. Sometimes we must make a stand, and this is one such occasion.
Despite those improvements, the incidence of corporal punishment in Scottish schools is still far too frequent. A recent article in The Observer featured interviews with some Edinburgh schoolchildren about the use of the belt at school. One primary schoolboy demonstrated how some teachers brought down the belt from over their shoulders. At another primary school a pupil claimed that a boy came out of one class with his fingers cut and his hand skinned. The 14-year-old explained how when a teacher lashed across the hand the thongs of the taws flicked around the palm and bruised the back of the hand, and how when he struck along the hand the thongs bruised the pupil's wrist.
We often hear about the deterrent effect of the belt. It is interesting to note one lad's comment. He claimed that some boys have a competition to see who can get the most. They keep the score, and they are proud of it. It is a strange deterrent that makes children behave in that way.
A massive survey was carried out of 30,000 children who left school during the late 1970s. The survey was entitled "Tell them from me", and was published by Aberdeen University Press in 1980. It is interesting to read what the children said there about corporal punishment. The vast majority of Scottish children are belted during their secondary schooling. Many are frequently punished

in this way. In only 10 per cent. of Scottish schools is the belt used rarely, despite the requirement of the code of practice that the strap should be used only as a last resort. The survey showed that 97 per cent. of male non-certificated students who had left school—the ones who did not sit the Scottish certificate of education examinations—said that they had been belted during their secondary schooling. Sixty per cent. said that they had been belted "often or quite often." In spite of the requirement of the so-called code of practice that girls should be belted only in exceptional circumstances, 82 per cent. of non-certificated girls had been belted and 26 per cent. said that they had been belted "often or quite often."
Even amongst the high flyers who sat their higher examinations, 88 per cent. of the boys and 36 per cent. of the girls said that they had been belted. It is no wonder that some people refer to "ritual violence" in some Scottish schools. It is high time that it was abolished. We could take an important step by supporting the new clause.
The new clause also refers to the replacement of corporal punishment by "alternative forms of punishment." We now have a better system of guidance and counselling in our schools. Counselling does not apply only to pupils or students who have stepped out of line in their behaviour. It goes wider than that. The opportunities are better for counselling on a one-to-one basis. Often a class teacher who has 30 children to tend does not have time to take one disruptive child aside and find out why that child is acting up. The reason could be something that has happened at home or because the child is psychologically disturbed. Counselling is in the interests of children, parents and teachers.
Surely it is not beyond the imagination of teachers to devise a system of lost privileges instead of hitting children. Detention might be an appropriate non-violent punishment, particularly if the pupil is frequently late or refuses to do homework or lessons in class. To compensate for that, for their own good, detention is a good idea, so long as it is accompanied by a useful educational activity. I do not believe in incarcerating children, but educational activity during part of the lunch break or after school hours is a more constructive punishment than violence.
The COSLA interim report referred to alternative forms of punishment. Pilot schemes are taking place in some schools where especially troublesome pupils are temporarily sent to a special centre within the school. Its pupil-teacher ratio is lower than in an ordinary class. The teacher in charge is specially gifted to deal with difficult pupils. I am sure that hon. Members who, like myself, have had teaching experience know that some teachers have a special gift for dealing with difficult pupils, determining the problems, and contacting the home. The aim of such a special centre must be to re-educate and rehabilitate the pupil so that eventually he can return to the mainstream of education in the school.
Has the Minister heard about the pilot schemes? Can he tell us any more about them, or is it too early to measure their success? Will he, or the other Ministers at the Scottish Office, visit some of the special centres? The head teachers who took the initiative to establish the pilot schemes should be congratulated. The Government should encourage more initiatives along those lines.
There may be a case for referring very troublesome pupils—for example, those who have resorted to violent crimes—to other authorities. An incident in a school may be referred to the reporter, who, in turn, may refer it to a


children's hearing. It is not as though there is no alternative. In the last analysis—I hope that it would happen only rarely—a pupil may be suspended for anti-social behaviour because his presence at a school threatens the educational opportunity of his fellow pupils. Another extreme measure would be transfer to another school. Again, I hope that the number of cases would be few.
To say that by removing corporal punishment we are removing all the sanctions and back-up of the disciplinary process in our schools shows a distinct lack of imagination. It is not true, because some of the sanctions already—

Mr. Martin Stevens: Before the hon. Gentleman reaches his conclusion about corporal punishment, will he make some reference to the Inner London Education Authority, where, in the brief period since corporal punishment has been withdrawn, the foul language, the threats and the physical aggression towards both male and female teachers have provoked an atmosphere of sullen despair among many senior teachers who are now contemplating resignation?

Mr. Canavan: I should be interested to see the hon. Gentleman's evidence to substantiate his remarks. We hear a great deal of hearsay about what is going on in our schools, and it is incumbent upon the hon. Gentleman to produce some hard facts rather than merely repeat gossip that he may have heard from a few teachers or a few head teachers who may not be especially representative of the profession. To blame the incidence of misbehaviour by pupils on the removal of corporal punishment is daft logic, and it was refuted by a Minister earlier today when the former hatchet man from Glasgow, Cathcart, who now represents a constituency near here, claimed that the increased violence on the Isle of Man was due to the abolition of the birch on the island. I am glad that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) was told that he was talking nonsense and that what he said could not be justified. I am glad that even some less unenlightened Ministers are now beginning to make public pronouncements to disown many of the extreme forms of rubbish that are uttered by some of their colleagues.
The COSLA interim report referred to the role of school councils. Why should not the councils be involved in the disciplinary procedures in our schools? The councils are statutory bodies that consist of representatives not only of teachers and head teachers but of parents and sometimes even of pupils. If the councils were to consider some of these cases they might make some useful suggestions for the disciplining of wrongdoers.
We should try to replace the present system of violent punishment in our schools by forms of alternative non-violent punishment. It is time that we abolished legalised violence in our schools.

Mr. Bill Walker: Rubbish.

Mr. Canavan: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not present to hear the earlier part of my speech, when I said that Britain was one of the few countries in Europe that resort to corporal punishment in its schools. At worst we are seen to be the barbarians of Europe, and at best we are seen to be the laughing stock of the civilised world.

Mr. Fairgrieve: I am not sure why I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, to reply to the debate. It may be that he asked me to do so because I had a high record of being in receipt of corporal punishment during my school days. I had some experience of the subject.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: It did my hon. Friend good.

Mr. Fairgrieve: I like to think that it did not do me any harm.
The debate started well before midnight and it is now well after 2 o'clock. We have had eight speakers, all from the Opposition. I should like to do justice to all their speeches, but because of the time that has been taken it is only right, for the sake of the House, that I should try to reduce my remarks to the minimum.
The opening speech was made by the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill), whom I compliment on the way in which he carried the Bill in Committee for the Opposition. He talked about weapons of abuse and went on to the alternatives of detention, no lunch breaks and extra work. In many ways some of those alternatives are, to some extent, a form of corporal punishment. In my youth I knew of something which would come in the middle, which was known as a clip over the lugs or a kick up the backside, which probably did no harm and quite a lot of good.
There was then a speech from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Carmichael), who introduced the concept of the Lochgelly belt. He went on to talk about the tradition of Scottish education, what a great name we had for education and what we had done in the past. Presumably that was in the same era, which he also condemned. I thought that his remarks on the subject were rather muddled.
After that there were the joyous—or unjoyous—experiences of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), who gave us the emotive description of entering class and the taws hung over the desk as an early warning at the beginning of the day that that was what one would get anyway. He talked about not being able to beat knowledge into a child and not being able to coerce a pupil into accepting discipline. He also referred to discipline being achieved only by co-operation.
Then came the most fantastic speech from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), who for some reason, much to the amusement of my hon. Friends, started telling us all about Lord Shaftesbury, what he had done and about the Factories and Truck Acts. I hope that the hon. Member for Cathcart will remember that the statue of Eros at Piccadilly was erected by the grateful people in honour of Lord Shaftesbury, the great Tory reformer. The 400 Acts put on the statute book by the Tory Party for industrial and social reform will never be matched by the late Liberal or present Labour Party.
I shall mention the odd speech of the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), who is now becoming known as the hon. Member for the West Bank. He referred to the golden age of education and sadistic tortures. He talked of children being tied to radiators and petticoats above their heads. He did not go on to say whether they were male or female and whether that was perversion or punishment. However, we were delighted to hear of those tortures, which seemed to happen on the West Bank. The hon.


Member then told us how things were somewhat different and better in Russia. I assume that that also effects children in Afghanistan.
I shall mention briefly the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes), who said that this practice was not new. He mentioned the 1956 code of practice. I shall refer to some of his remarks when I come to my final remarks on the subject.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. McKelvey) again raised the question of barbaric punishment and the sword of Damocles that hung above all pupils. He gave us a graphic description of a belting when, unfortunately, the poor schoolmaster in his fury missed and nearly broke his leg when the pupil withdrew his hand.
Then we had a long, sober, boring speech from the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), who talked about legalised violence, hardened criminals and tiny children being beaten by people three times their weight and twice their size. He referred to degradation and violence breeding violence. The hon. Gentleman mentioned list D schools. I remind him that about 50 per cent. of the pupils in those schools come from one-parent families. He should take that little homily home instead of making remarks about violence.
As was obvious from the way in which the Chamber emptied, the House lost interest in what the hon. Gentleman was saying. He was as repetitive as in Committee. He went on at boring length, until I could no longer follow his remarks. He will doubtless subject the House to further long, boring and repetitive speeches for the rest of the night.

Mr. Maxton: Is the Minister challenging my hon. Friend?

Mr. Fairgrieve: I am glad to say that my speeches will always be half the length of those of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire.
I conclude by pointing out that the scope for changing the role of corporal punishment depends very much on the extent to which it is possible to develop and reach agreement on alternative sanctions. They must be agreed by the profession and by both parties in the House.
Hon. Members are no doubt aware that a working party has been set up by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on alternatives to corporal punishment. The group, which includes representatives of parents, teachers and local authorities, has commissioned a study of schools where corporal punishment is administered and schools where it is seldom or never used. The working group has already considered its interim report. However, before it prepares a final report, with recommendations, further work and study is being carried out in some of the schools originally studied and in additional schools. The working group hopes to report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State before the end of the year.
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that that is an important initiative and that the final report will have to be carefully studied by my right hon. Friend and other interested parties. It would be quite wrong to do as those putting forward the new clause propose and deprive teachers, in anticipation of the report and discussion of its content, of their common law right to administer moderate corporal punishment. Any such major formal change would be premature, even in respect of handicapped children—and I shall return to that subject later.
I welcome the opportunity to repeat the unqualified endorsement that we gave in Committee to the ruling contained in the 1968 statement of principles and code of practice that corporal punishment should not be inflicted on a pupil suffering from any kind of handicap. I look forward with interest to the development of alternative sanctions in the wider sphere. In view of the impending COSLA report, I strongly urge hon. Members to accept the fact that the new clause is premature and should be rejected.

Mr. Canavan: If the Minister is saying that the Government do not believe that handicapped children should be subjected to corporal punishment, why did Government Members vote against my amendment in Committee?

Mr. Fairgrieve: For the reasons that I gave in Committee and tonight and for the reasons why the Labour Government did nothing.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The Labour Government introduced the code of practice, so what is the hon. Gentleman blathering about?

Mr. Fairgrieve: Our position was clearly stated in Committee. Hon. Gentlemen should make not make the issue emotive when they know the facts.
Hon. Gentlemen have asked what our policy is on corporal punishment in schools.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I do not fully accept that because there is a working party it is impossible to legislate. It should be possible to lay down that the clause does not come into operation until the negotiations are complete. Will the Minister accept the first part of the clause? He cannot justify refusing it, especially in relation to handicapped children. If it were included in another place, we should be making progress in an area in which he says that he does not want to see corporal punishment used.

Mr. Fairgrieve: I shall refer again later to the question of corporal punishment and handicapped children. The House does not help the subject by becoming emotive and talking about groups of teachers beating handicapped children, which does not happen. In many cases, physical restraint may be described as corporal punishment. It is a very difficult area. I do not think that the way in which it is being treated by certain hon. Members is right.
I point out once again that the Government, like their predecessors, do not dissent from the statement of principle and code of practice promulgated in 1968 by the liaison committee on educational matters on which authorities, teachers and the Scottish Education Department were represented. In essence, our view is that discipline in schools is a matter best left to the judgment of the head teacher and teaching staff, with direction and guidance as appropriate from the education authority.
Parents will, of course, wish to be aware of the disciplinary arrangements of schools in order to exercise their right of choice. To encourage parents to take an interest in these matters and to allow them to find a school that suits their own opinions and discipline, the consultative paper that we have issued and the regulations for information for parents propose that schools should make available details of their policy on discipline.
I said that I would return to the subject of handicapped children. We stressed in Committee that any change in the


disciplinary code could be made only after consultation with education authorities and teachers' associations. Nevertheless, I recognise the concern of hon. Members that the position of handicapped children in this respect should be clarified as soon as possible. I am prepared to give an assurance that the consultations that we shall be carrying out following the enactment of Warnock legislation on regulations governing the conduct of special schools and classes will not exclude the question of corporal punishment.
I wish to say a brief word on the finding of the European Commission of Human Rights that the United Kingdom Government have failed to respect the philosophical convictions of parents who believe that their children should not be subject to corporal punishment. The Government, as we all know—and this applies to more than the present Government—are contesting that finding in the European Court. As the position is currently sub judice, it would be premature for me to press the issue at this stage.

Mr. Canavan: How much money is it costing the Crown Office and the Scottish Education Department to prepare that case, and how much time is being spent on briefing the Solicitor-General for Scotland and the Lord Advocate to trek over to Strasbourg?

Mr. Henderson: Justice is beyond price.

Mr. Fairgrieve: I have no idea how much it is costing, but no doubt the question has been heard and if an answer is available we will get it to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. John MacKay: Is it not interesting that the Educational Institute of Scotland, which was heavily quoted by the Opposition in an earlier debate, wishes the Government to defend the position of Scottish teachers at those hearings?

Mr. Fairgrieve: I thank my hon. Friend for giving us that information from his great knowledge of the profession.
I had intended to ask the Opposition not to divide the House on this matter, but I now invite them to do so, for the simple reason than in the Division before midnight only 40 out of 253 Labour Members voted. That is the interest that the Opposition take in this important subject, on which one hon. Member has repeated himself on and on to the utter boredom of the entire House. I shall be interested to see how many Opposition Members are taking this important issue of education in Scotland seriously enough to stay and vote against provisions that they do not like. Of the 43 Scottish Labour Members, only 20 voted in the last Division. I hope that they will be able to do better this time. I invite them to divide the House.

Mr. O'Neill: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to say that we wish to vote on the new clause, not for the dubious reasons advanced by the Minister, but simply because we feel that once again the House should have the opportunity to vote on corporal punishment.
There is considerable disappointment among Labour Members that once again the Minister has chosen to hide behind this so-called working party. Were that working party to be paid on a productivity basis, it would not earn much. However, the time scale that we envisage is modest. Certainly the points made by my hon. Friend the

Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) were reasonable. He said that it would be possible to accept the new clause and to carry on the negotiations.

Mr. Maxton: The Government are keen to use the processes of consultation to delay decisions that they do not like. Had they consulted the colleges of education in the same way, those colleges could still hope to be open in 1986.

Mr. O'Neill: I return to the point of the new clause. We want to ensure that the House is left in no doubt that the Labour Party's resolve on this matter is a good deal firmer than it was during the lifetime of the Labour Government. There has been a change in the climate of opinion. We recognise that there is a new mood among parents and educationists. In some respects the teachers' organisations are moving at the speed of the slowest. The Secretary of State would be ill-advised to delay too long with these committees.
The new clause is modest and sensible. It allows the Government to go forward and to get the kind of agreement which even the Under-Secretary wants so that this barbaric form of punishment may be removed from the Scottish education scene.
For those reasons, we want to press the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 24, Noes 101.

Division No. 210]
[2.35 am


AYES


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
McKelvey, William


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
McTaggart, Robert


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Maxton, John


Canavan, Dennis
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Carmichael, Neil
O'Neill, Martin


Cryer, Bob
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Radice, Giles


Dewar, Donald
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Dormand, Jack
Skinner, Dennis


Eadie, Alex
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Ewing, Harry



Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Haynes, Frank
Mr. Robert Hughes and


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Mr. George Foulkes.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Ancram, Michael
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Biggs-Davison, John
Grist, Ian


Blackburn, John
Gummer, John Selwyn


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hannam, John


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hawksley, Warren


Bright, Graham
Henderson, Barry


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Jessel, Toby


Budgen, Nick
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Butcher, John
King, Rt Hon Tom


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Knox, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lang, Ian


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Cockeram, Eric
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Colvin, Michael
Lyell, Nicholas


Dorrell, Stephen
Macfarlane, Neil


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Dover, Denshore
Major, John


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Mather, Carol


Fairgrieve, Russell
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin






Mellor, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sproat, Iain


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Moate, Roger
Stevens, Martin


Monro, Hector
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Murphy, Christopher
Stradling Thomas, J.


Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Neubert, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Newton, Tony
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Normanton, Tom
Thompson, Donald


Osborn, John
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Viggers, Peter


Proctor, K. Harvey
Waddington, David


Raison, Timothy
Wakeham, John


Rathbone, Tim
Walker, B. (Perth)


Rhodes James, Robert
Wells, Bowen


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wheeler, John


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wickenden, Keith


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Wolfson, Mark


Rossi, Hugh
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Younger, Rt Hon George


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)



Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Tellers for the Noes:


Sims, Roger
Mr. John Cope and


Skeet, T. H. H.
Mr. Alastair Goodlad.


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 6

PROVISION OF FURTHER EDUCATION

'In the Principal Act, in section 1, insert the following subsections after subsection (4):—
(5) It shall be compulsory for all employers of young people in the 16 to 18 years age group to make provision for such young persons to spend one day each working week at established colleges to take courses relevant to the skills required in their work and where necessary, to advance their general education.
(6) Where a young person between the ages of 16 and 18 has been registered as unemployed for a period of three months continuously, the education authority shall in consultation with the Manpower Services Commission, make provision for such young persons to attend established colleges for a least one day per week to take courses which will offer vocational training and advance their general education.".'—[Mr. Gordon Wilson.]
Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The aim of the clause is to breathe life into the provisions in sections 45 to 48 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. From 1948 almost until the present time there has been a provision in the Scottish Education Acts for the education of those over the school leaving age until 18. The format adopted a number of years ago, and continued in successive Acts, relates to an institution called a junior college.
A junior college is a very interesting institution, because it does not exist. Yet religiously, every five or 10 years, whenever we codify the law relating to education in a consolidation Bill, there is a repetition of the provision that a duty is to be placed on every education authority to provide for young people compulsory further education and that it is
the duty of every young person upon whom…a notice is served to attend at the junior college".
The Act stipulates what the period of attendance should be, and contains
Provisions for securing attendance at junior colleges", "Enforcement of attendance at junior colleges
and

Power to require attendance of unemployed young persons at junior colleges".
All would be well, except that we do not have any junior colleges.
The introduction of the colleges was intended to be triggered off by a Secretary of State at some time or other making regulations, which would be brought before the House, to enable them to be set up. One of the difficulties is that the Act contains no indication of what a junior college is to be. Most of us accept, particularly in these days of restricted public finance, that it is very unlikely that the Government, certainly the present Government, would go out of their way to set up a new form of tertiary education that would serve the purposes specified in the 1980 Act and its predecessors.
Section 1(5)(b) of the Act gives a clue to the intentions of the former legislators on the provision of further education for young people. It says that it is
designed to enable them to develop their various aptitudes and capacities and to prepare them for the responsibilities of citizenship".
That definition is very useful; it puts the parameters on the provision. I do not think that any hon. Member would think that the provision of junior colleges, if ever they came into existence, would be an undesirable change in our education structure.
Our tertiary education in Scotland has got into a bit of a tangle. The Government have made proposals, and consultations and commissions of inquiry are going on, to disentangle the whole system and rationalise and simplify it. Therefore, my starting point in the clause is that it is unlikely that there will be such a thing as a junior college. I have suggested that we should use the existing, established colleges. Without going to all the trouble of setting up new institutions, we could thus make better use of our current facilities.
From the latest statistics on post-school education, one discovers that the take-up rate is very low. I draw the Minister's attention in particular to an answer that he gave me on 23 March this year. The figures show that in 1979–80 the number of students engaged in full-time non-advanced education totalled 18,946. In the same year the number of students aged between 16 and 24—a span beyond that mentioned in the new clause—taking part-time advanced education was 9,610, or 1·3 per cent. of the population. Those taking day release non-advanced education amounted to 42,633, or 5·6 per cent. of the population. The figure for block release non-advanced education was 11,303, or 1·5 per cent. of the population, and for non-advanced vocational further education taken during the evenings the total was 23,440, or 3·1 per cent. of the population.
A comparison with other European countries shows that the number taking courses is very low. The percentage rates are particularly devastating. It will be difficult for the Scottish Office to offer much defence except to argue that the situation has existed for a considerable time. The statistics are appalling for any country that prides itself on its education system and its ability to make courses available to all sections of the community. The fact that about 60 per cent. of youngsters leave school with minimal or no qualifications must also be considered.
The new clause takes into account the present high level of young people unable to find a job when they leave school, with the psychological effects and the blighting of lives involved. An attempt is made to provide these young


people with some chance to continue their education without having to attend secondary school and to give them the status of students. In that different environment, they may respond.
It is always wise to try to discover what happens in the education system in different countries. An international comparison of vocational training was carried out by Chris Hayes Associates Ltd. of London in the form of a report, prepared at the request of the training services division of the Manpower Commission Services, dated April 1980. It has summaries and papers relating to West Germany, France, the United States and Sweden.
West Germany has more than 1·5 million apprentices, including 500,000 girls. Only about 6 per cent. of school leavers at the age of 15 or 16 fail to get apprenticeships, and the Federal Republic plans to provide training for even more young people. A wide range of full-time and part-time courses leads to the award of various grades of certificates. This grading and constant retraining has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) in relation to payment of teachers in the United States. In West Germany it is part of a system in which people can change jobs, receive training and move either vertically or horizontally in relation to advanced skills or different ranges of skills.
3 am
In Sweden compulsory education lasts until the age of 16, with comprehensive schools providing only general education, although the last two years of school education include careers education, work visits and work experience. After the age of 16 there are two to four-year upper secondary schools, which provide general, vocational and technical education. These schools are voluntary, but about 80 per cent. of school leavers register with them. Additional higher education institutions provide full-time technical education. Leave from employment for education and training has been a legal entitlement since 1975.
I have given only two examples, but they are not unique. Hon. Members would find it worth while to go through the documentation and study the booklet "Outlook on Training—a Review of the Employment and Training Act 1973", which was produced by the MSC in July 1980. Together with some of the EIS papers that have been submitted, the documents have some comments to make. I believe that there is a close interlinking between education and training. If there is not, there should be. All hon. Members will know that the present system has difficulties and lacks flexibility.
By comparison with other countries, Scotland has not even skimmed the surface of providing real post-school facilities that are both relevant to needs and in tune with the modern world. There is no need to rehearse the arguments contained in the Euro-Scot report of 1975. That report is a bit old. However, it is worth reminding hon. Members that it showed that a large number of young Scots felt alienated from the society in which they lived. Undoubtedly, that alienation will have been increased by the growth in youth unemployment. When one contrasts the systems operating in Germany and Sweden with ours, one can see the deficiencies of our system. A better system

of post-school provision would help to reduce that alienation and the all-too-prevalent feeling of despair amongst our youngsters.
Successive Governments have attempted to deal with the problem in different ways. All parties realise that there is a long way to go. Some of the facilities provided under the youth opportunities programme are causing dissatisfaction among the young. They feel that the programme has been a bit of a fraud. It is regarded as a dead-end scheme and many youngsters feel that they are being used as cheap labour. They gain some work experience, but they do not gain skills. Once the experience is over, they pass on to the general list of unemployed people.
For six or eight months, a path has been worked on under the youth opportunities programme. When I pass the site I see youths working in a desultory way. At one time they found it difficult to get tools. The task is almost akin to the great project undertaken in Paris in about 1870, when huge holes were dug and then filled in again. It represents a Government attempt to provide young people with a taste of employment. The courses and opportunities provided under the programme are essentially short-term. The scheme's four basic essentials are induction into the world at work, planned work experience, a process of counselling and, lastly, and perhaps most interestingly, the opportunity of training, further education and an improvement in education standards.
That brings me to the new clause and its proposals. As I said in my initial remarks, there has been on the statute book for years the well-intentioned proposal to cater for those who are employed, but may not have the opportunity of day release, by attendance at junior college. It also provides for those who are unemployed the opportunity of education, to improve their general standards of education and to obtain vocational training. It is a dead letter, because it has never been invoked. Yet, because it remains on the statute book, repeated, replaced but never excised, it shows that Governments have, over a period of time, accepted the principle that post-school education is desirable and useful.
It may be said as an excuse for not implementing the proposal I put forward that it will cost money. I take the view from the outset that further education, vocational training, is a way of improving the labour force, of improving the lives of our young people. I believe that post-school education is the natural extension of school education, but with a different dimension, and that, even by those standards, any extra expenditure would be worth while.
If we consider expenditure, it may not be that much greater than some of the hand-to-mouth schemes that we now have. The youth opportunities scheme this year will deal with 38,300 youngsters at a cost of £23·6 million. Next year, for 48,000 young people, the anticipated cost is £32·6 million. Even in these inflationary days, that is a considerable sum of money. Many of the young people who are unable to obtain a job will be in receipt of supplementary benefit. It is a strong criticism of the Government that many will have to wait an inordinate period from the time they leave school—sometimes before the end of June—to 1 September when they can receive benefit. This does not take account of the school leaving periods in Scotland.
Considerable injustice and unfairness is caused for young people. From September onwards those young people will be in receipt of supplementary benefit. Again,


that is part of the maintenance available to them to enable them to continue their studies. We all know of the compromise that has been reached whereby unemployed young people can go to colleges of commerce to advance their general education on a part-time basis—three days out of five—so long as they are prepared to interrupt whatever course they are taking if a job comes along.
That may seem a harsh arrangement, but the sad fact is that there are so few jobs available for young people that they can, to some extent at any rate, pursue the advancement of their general education through attendance at these colleges of education. That is by exemption, by discretion, where the Departments of Employment and Health and Social Services have agreed that there are social advantages in young people receiving education or training instead of standing around on street corners without anything to do.
My new clause endeavours to breathe fresh life into the 1980 Act. It recognises that there is no prospect at present of junior colleges being established. I wish that that were not so, but perhaps it would cause a degree of confusion and consternation within the tertiary sector anyway. There are colleges within the tertiary sector which are full and others with many vacant places which they would like to fill. Perhaps it would be tempting the hon. Members for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) and Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) into life again, but it may be one of the more useful ways of extending the colleges of education.
Apart from the colleges of education that are to be shut, there are other colleges of education which have spare places and which could be used for this purpose, never mind colleges of technology and commerce and the universities, although in many cases universities cater for students with higher qualifications than those for whom the new clause is intended. As, no doubt, the hon. Member for Cathcart has in mind, students who start at colleges of commerce or the lower institutions and business colleges can progress by getting the basic qualifications, taking their highers, and then go to university, although perhaps at a more mature age than those of their contemporaries who stayed at school.
The case in principle for further education of this kind is well established. The new clause deals with the two circumstances that I have described. First, it makes it
compulsory for all employers of young people in the 16 to 18 years age group to make provision for such young persons to spend one day each working week at established colleges to take courses relevant to the skills required in their work and where necessary, to advance their general education".
The second leg of the new clause is that
Where a young person between the ages of 16 and 18 has been registered as unemployed for a period of three months continuously, the education authority shall in consulation with the Manpower Services Commission, make provision for such young persons to attend established colleges for at least one day per week to take courses which will offer vocational training and advance their general education.
One has always to balance the need for a better vocational training with the need for a better general education. Frequently, one cannot have vocational training and other advanced training unless the general educational standards are also improved.
The cost that is involved will not necessarily break the Exchequer. At a time of high youth unemployment, the new clause is a useful proposal. Young people who are deprived of opportunities should be given the chance to better themselves and to use the facilities which already

exist in colleges. The CBI and the STUC have said at various times that there is a desperate need to improve education at this level. It is useful, even at this abnormally late—or early—hour, to have a debate on post-school education. It is perhaps the start of a number of debates. One is due to take place soon in the Scottish Grand Committee. However, we did not debate the matter in Standing Committee. I am glad, therefore, that we now have an opportunity to consider this sector of education. The new clause provides the House with an opportunity to show good will.
The new clause also gives an opportunity to show political will in achieving what generations since 1945 have endeavoured to do—namely, to provide our young people with an extended education after leaving school.

Mr. Maxton: One of the advantages of being here at this late, or early, hour is that in the Tea Room one can obtain this morning's newspapers. All the tabloid papers contain an advertisement by the Manpower Services Commission, a Government body, financed with Government funds. As it still exists, one must assume that the Government support it.
The advertisement contains a catching phrase which sums up the new clause. It says:
If we don't plant acorns, we won't get oaks.
That sums up the philosophy of the new clause. The advertisement contains comments from both sides of industry. Terry Duffy, the president of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers—I am never sure on which side he is—states:
We all need to make a commitment to training if we're going to compete in the modern world.
Sir Terence Beckett, director general of the CBI, not a great friend of the Prime Minister, but a person of influence in industry, says:
The CBI is totally committed to the Youth Opportunities Programme.
Ron Saunders, manager of Aston Villa football club says:
Let's give Britain's teenagers a sporting chance.
John Welsh, of W. A. Davies (Furnishings) Ltd., Bristol says:
Clearly, you have to provide experience and training.
Statements are made by Lord Weinstock, Joe Gormley and Len Murray, who say that there is a need to provide much more opportunity and training for our young people.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) for tabling the new clause. I tabled a similar clause in Committee, but because of the need to make progress I withdrew it. I did not re-introduce it on Report because I knew that there was to be a debate in the Scottish Grand Committee on the issue.
I accept the principle behind the clause, but I have some reservations about its wording. The Education (Scotland) Act 1945 is not as rigid as the new clause. That Act allows training to take place one day a week, in blocks of a fortnight or in a continuous block. It allows more flexibility.
We must train more young people. One of the causes of Britain's economic decline is that for too long we have trained too few youngsters compared with our major industrial competitors. We cannot blame that on Governments of either complexion in recent times. It goes way back to what is loosely termed the second industrial revolution, which began in the 1890s with the


development of electrical power, new processes in steel and the process of what is sometimes called the scientific as opposed to the technical revolution.
In 1900 the German Empire trained about 3,000 chemical engineers in its universitites, while in Britain only 300 science graduates left the universities. Matters have improved dramatically since 1900, but Britain continues to lag behind its major competitors in providing sufficient opportunities for youngsters to obtain the necessary skills. Britain is still failing in that process Arguably, during the past two years matters have become worse rather than better. A larger number of youngsters are unemployed. They are not receiving any training in the vital years after they leave school.
The advertisement to which I referred dealt with the youth opportunities programme. I agree with the hon. Member for Dundee, East that that programme, while providing useful work experience courses—especially in the training workshops in Scotland, which are not unique, but are more fully developed than they are elsewhere—does not solve the problem of the number of youngsters who do not receive training. Too many of the schemes provide an element of work experience but without any continuation into apprenticeships, full-time or even part-time courses in further education colleges, or other forms of post-school education.
It is disastrous for both the future of our youngsters and the future of our economy that, at a time when the Government are increasing the amount of money within the Manpower Services Commission for the special programmes division, which deals with the youth opportunities programme, they are dramatically cutting the money for the training division. The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs has investigated youth unemployment and training. It has taken evidence from a series of witnesses from the industrial training boards. Their evidence, both written and oral, shows that the number of apprentices in Scottish industry has dropped dramatically and will continue to do so.
Fewer and fewer youngsters will be taking apprenticeship courses to help them to obtain the skills required if ever the economy bottoms out and begins to lift off again. We doubt whether there will be the skilled manpower within our economy to take full advantage of an upturn. The House should be concerned about that.
Although one day a week spent in training may be only a partial answer, it is one way forward. We must have not just a hotchpotch of youth opportunity schemes, but a genuine planned approach towards developing the skills of a much larger number of youngsters. The hon. Member for Dundee, East referred to finance. I think that his assessment is right. It would not cost the Government much more to have youngsters in training than to have them on youth opportunity programmes or on supplementary benefit. It might cost slightly more to provide them with training but the money would be better used than at present.
There is spare capacity within the post-school education system. There is capacity in the colleges of education in terms of buildings and staff to provide part of the programme of training youngsters that is needed. When I referred to universities from a sedentary position while the hon. Gentleman was speaking, he said that they were about people with higher skills and higher qualifications.

That is true, but there are many who would argue that much of the physical capacity of universities is under-used in the context of a 12-month year instead of the eight-month or seven-month year that is worked by the students.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying his argument. If the cuts in the universities take effect, even more space will be available that would have been used for training students.

Mr. Maxton: The hon. Gentleman is correct.
The universities should be used to the full for the purpose for which they were designed. However, we could use the physical facilities of the universities and possibly even some of the staff. There are many university staff who run non-vocational courses through various institutions such as the Workers' Educational Association. Their capacities could be used to provide such courses for others and to provide also vocational courses. They provide engineering and business courses and many other such courses. They would have to drop down a level, but that would not be too difficult.
Further education colleges are being strained to some extent. They are not being given extra money and they are increasingly being given extra burdens. That seems to be the way in which the Government operate. They ask people to do more but they are not prepared to give them the money to enable the work to be done properly. That has happened in the FE colleges.
There is a further area of which the new clause would not take account—the schools themselves. The same comment may be made about universities. If we are moving into a period where secondary school rolls are dropping and where there may be some redundancies among teachers, some of the capacity that is in the schools should be used for post-school students. I accept that there are some psychological barriers. Many of those who leave school at 16 years with no qualifications would not wish to stay in that building or even to go to another school. It would require some imagination to deal with that problem by ensuring that those students were treated differently and were treated as post-school students, as adults and not as schoolchildren. There is spare capacity in that sector that could be used for the training of young people.
That is a project that would have to be treated with imagination and flexibility. We must consider the capacity that is available in education as a whole and ensure that we use it to the best advantage. That is not happening. The Government are not using imaginatively the capacity in the education system. The opposite could be said to be true. They have closed colleges of education. They will close secondary schools where it becomes necessary. They are giving the local authorities power in the Bill to be able to do that.
3.30 am
The Government are not assessing our capacity, asking what are our problems, what needs to be done in education and how we can ensure that we spend the same sums of money. Although we may not save as much, we shall not be spending more. We accept that there will be falling school rolls and that there will be spare money in the system. We should use that money to provide better facilities, particularly for the 16 to 18-year-olds and those who leave school with no form of qualification.
It is always said "It is fine to provide skills and more education for the youngsters aged from 16 to 18 years, but


are not we training them for unemployment? What is the purpose of giving them the training and skills and a more general education if, at the end of the day, they will still be unemployed?"
I should like to make two points on that argument. First, a youngster with some skills who has been through the process of training has developed his education further than at school. Even if he does not get a job immediately, he feels better equipped to deal with life than if he had had no training. He at least can feel that when matters improve he will have a better chance of getting a job than the youngster who has had no training. He is at an advantage.
Perhaps there will be frustration because that person has the skills but cannot use them. I hope that the next Labour Government will look at how those skills could be used through public works programmes or by greater investment in the public sector. I accept that there may be frustration, but I do not believe that it is as great as the frustration in youngsters who are unemployed and have no skills. They feel a sense of hopelessness, which leads to much social distress in our society. We should all be concerned about that.
My second argument is that when we educate people—sometimes this is easily forgotten—in particular skills or when we give them a general training for broad skills, we are training them not for the period between 18 and 19 years of age or 18 and 20 years of age, but in skills which we hope they will be able to use, possibly adapted. We might have to retrain them and readapt those skills until they retire at the age of 65. I hope that by the time today's youngsters reach that age the retirement age will be considerably lower.
The individual and society will be using those skills. We hope that they will use those skills, if not immediately, at least later on when society again needs them. Therefore, we must consider the matter not just from the short-term aspect of the person's employment but from the longer-term aspect.
There is also a demographic argument. I accept that the fall in school rolls in secondary schools is dramatic. There are many secondary schools in my constituency in which it is likely that over the next few years the roll will be almost half what it was at its peak a couple of years ago. If that happens there will come a point from 1985 onwards when the consequences of that drop in the secondary school rolls will emerge in the labour market. Therefore, fewer youngsters will be able to be trained at university or to develop secondary skills in management and apprenticeships.
After 1984, after we win the election, the economy will pick up and boom, but we may have far fewer youngsters capable of being trained. If we do not train today's youngsters, we shall have people between the ages of 20 and 30 without skills, who will have become accustomed to unemployment and who will find it difficult to adapt to the work ethos, and not enough youngsters leaving school to be trained in the necessary skills. We must train today's youngsters for tomorrow. If we fail, we shall fail not only the youngsters as individuals—and we offer many of them a dreadful prospect today—but our economy and future as a nation.
We need skilled people, with the ability to retrain and retrain again. Without them, it is difficult to see how our economy will pick up. Our competitors do it much better than we do. Unless we train our youngsters and use their

capacity to develop their skills, our economic future is not rosy. If we start with the general principle in the clause and carry it through, we have hope for the future.

Mr. Craigen: I have not seen today's newspaper, so I have not read about the oak trees growing, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) spoke, I reflected that the Government seem intent on cutting trees down when they are not selling them off as Forestry Commission assets.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) has raised vital issues concerning post-school education. We have heard about colleges of education and universities, but Scottish colleges of further education have long been the stepchildren of Scottish tertiary education. Usually those with most to say about how the sector should be run have had least experience of it as students, teachers, industrialists or trade unionists.
I am concerned that the Government will not take advantage of the demographic changes that have been working their way through primary and secondary schools and are about to hit universities and colleges of further education. Over the next decade we shall see a fairly dramatic drop in the number of school leavers. By 1993–94 it will be about 30,000 per annum. The decrease gives the Government a unique opportunity to make the most of colleges of further education. If the trends in primary and secondary school are any indication, some colleges of further education will be closing. As the hon. Member for Dundee, East rightly said, we shall be talking not about new colleges and additional provision but about the closure of existing colleges. With rising unemployment, we are already witnessing more spare capacity in existing colleges in Scotland. The Government will have to address themselves seriously to this matter.
The Minister will know that one secondary school in my constituency is working towards the creation of a community school concept. It rightly senses a need to bring the local community into the activities of the secondary school. There may well be the prospect of making more use of secondary school accommodation in that way, but there are deep-seated obstacles in the way of that, not just in the attitudes of youngsters who once they leave school do not want to go back into the same environment, but in the existing career structure of the teaching profession, in which further education is different from secondary education in terms of both career outlets and salary structure.
The Under-Secretary is uniquely placed in that he is responsible for industry and employment as well as education in Scotland. He should therefore be aware of the problems arising on the industrial front and of the substantial drop in the number of apprenticeships over the past two or three years. This is having a heavy impact in areas such as Clydeside, where there has been a traditional reliance upon apprenticeships as the method by which many of our young boys, particularly, have entered permanent employment and have gained training in the process.
Industrial training boards, such as the engineering and construction boards, have done their best to create additional training places through their training awards scheme. Instead of acting as foster parents, however, the boards are frequently obliged to act as ambulance attendants. With the growing number of redundancies in our manufacturing industries, I know from discussions


with board officials that they are spending more time finding alternative employment for boys, and sometimes girls, who are displaced when a firm closes down.
One of the weaknesses of post-school vocational training in this country has been in the clerical and commercial sector and in the service sector. We have been very good on the craft side, but we have not been so good in the clerical, commercial and service occupations.
One major area of difficulty where the Government will have to grasp the nettle is in the cost to employers of initial training. Although he did not say much about it, I am sure that the hon. Member for Dundee, East would acknowledge this in terms of his new clause. The problem of the cost of initial training will have to be overcome.
Reference has been made to the German system. I shall not dwell long on that. Suffice it to say that the dual system that operates in the Federal Republic of Germany involves employers, employees and education authorities in a way that is less familiar in this country. It does so through the local chambers of commerce and trade.
3.45 am
The Under-Secretary, wearing his industrial hat, will know that there is a far greater readiness by employers in the Federal Republic of Germany than there is in this country to accept their training responsibilities. Although I did not serve on the Committee that considered the Bill, I was a member of the Committee on the Employment and Training Bill. That led me to the conclusion that, on the one hand, the Government were seeking to dismantle the industrial training system and, on the other, that they were not clear about the alternatives that should be put forward to replace it.
None the less, the German situation ensures that only about one in 10 school leavers goes into unskilled labour without the opportunity of some form of vocational training. Incidentally, we should also take into account the range of occupations that have systematic training, where a federal body sets the entry requirements, lays down the courses to be followed and is involved in the certification process. They range over a far wider area of occupation, and I believe that about 450 occupations are recognised for traineeships.
New clause 6 is also concerned with the growing number of youngsters who do not get employment. It is therefore academic to them whether day release, block release or any other kind of release is available. Over the past decade there has been a trebling in the number of young school leavers out of work. At the beginning of that decade, in the 1970s, there was also the raising of the school leaving age, which removed a whole year's output from the unemployment figures. That fact should also be borne in mind.
The problem of youth unemployment has grown. The most serious aspect has been the length of time for which many young people are now out of a job. Not only have the numbers grown, but so has the length of time spent on the dole.
I want to refer briefly to the youth opportunities programme. Figures have been publicly stated to the Select Committee on Employment, of which I am a member, indicating the extent to which job substitution is growing. I readily admit that the programme creates job opportunities for youngsters. However, none other than

the Secretary of State for Employment has conceded that about one in five of all places on it effectively displaces or substitutes for permanent employment. I believe that the figure is about one in three in respect of the work experience on employers premises element of the YOP.
I have already mentioned the training boards scheme. I believe that about 16,500 young people in Scotland have benefited from that scheme in recent years. I think I am also right in saying that Scotland's share in the expansion of the YOP for 1981–82 represents about one-sixth of the provision for Great Britain as a whole and that we shall have about 67,000 young people in Scotland on a YOP in 1981–82. That is a very large percentage of the number of school leavers in Scotland. It is an alarming percentage, because it means that that number of young people are not gaining and experiencing the status, confidence and other things that go with the first job that one gets when one leaves school.
That is very important when young people leave school, particularly for those youngsters who have not been particularly happy at school. I often think that they are like moths to a flame. The youngsters who are not qualified, who have had most difficulty in school, are the very people who want to get out of school as quickly as they can, but they are the most vulnerable in an adverse labour market.
The Minister might care to comment on a matter that I have raised in a parliamentary question, namely, the attempt by Strathclyde region to try to develop some kind of college-based group work experience scheme. Recently Mr. Robert MacDonald, the principal careers officer for Strathclyde, expanded on how, for example, with the Springburn college of engineering, which happens to be in a constituency adjacent to mine, there was an attempt to have a one-year sandwich-based course, involving the college and work experience on employers' premises, as a kind of bridge towards permanent employment.
The Minister must bear in mind that the larger percentage of firms in Scotland could be classified as small firms, and therefore he must bear in mind the needs of those firms in terms of training assistance and provision. As an indication of the number of youngsters likely to take part in these vocational preparation schemes, where the Scottish Education Department and the Manpower Services Commission are involved, I see that grants are to be made available to employers for day release in 1981–82 for about 450 to 500 places and in 1983–84 for 2,000 places. These are just drops in the bucket. The Minister must explain why such a mean approach is being adopted.
Whilst I might quibble with certain aspects of the new clause and the way in which it is drafted, I have no doubt that if the Government really mean to do anything about post-school vocational education, and the problems of the 16 to 19 age group in particular, they will have to assist and encourage employers and permit young people to get the advantages of post-school training. In respect of the YOP, they will have to make more positive provision for a training element within what is essentially a transitional means to try to keep 67,000 young people in Scotland off the dole in 1981–82.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I have decided that it is time I uttered a few words on this important subject of education. I am not the least inhibited because I am surrounded by experts on the subject. I see the formidable documentation that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) has. I shudder to


think how long we might be going on discussing education. I confess that I am not at my best at this time in the morning. I suspect, looking at the Minister, that neither is he. I hope that he will spare a few minutes to reply to some of my brief points.
We are indebted to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) for raising the subject, although I regret that some of my hon. Friends have spoken at such length on other subjects which are not of such importance in the current scene. Whatever reason or explanation is given for the subject not being adequately discussed in Committee, a short debate, even at this time in the morning, is justified. Will the Minister convey to his right hon. Friend that injustice is being done to school leavers in Scotland over their supplementary benefit? Everyone knows that it is related to further education. All these matters are interrelated, such as maintenance allowances, bursaries and the other paraphernalia of modern society. It is unfortunate if there is an added disincentive to youngsters to leave school before they have taken examinations because it is their only chance of receiving supplementary benefit at an earlier date.
The Government should consider that, because of the different school leaving dates in Scotland. That is not a Scottish nationalist argument—though that party can make arguments out of anything. This is a real argument for a change.
I am not particularly knowledgeable about this matter. My hon. Friend has spoken with authority of his experience and his career plus the interest that he has shown since he came to the House. I am saying this because of problems that have arisen in my constituency and, I assume, in many other areas. The Minister visited two schools in Eastbourne six months ago and he knows the problem that concerns me.
I shall not go on at length about the failure of the Government's economic policies and therefore the increase in unemployment, but the Government need to stir themselves. It is not enough constantly to be saying "It is an increase in public expenditure. We cannot look at it." The Government will be compelled to look at some of these things, unless they want serious social unrest. It is getting worse. The mood in the country, especially among young people, is becoming sharply cynical, disillusioned and even bitter. I do not know that any of us have all the answers to the problems that face us, but the Government should show more energy in attending to the problems of young people.
There is the opportunity. We have seen an increase in unemployment, falling rolls and, therefore, spare capacity in schools, colleges and, presumably, universities. There are more teachers than ever and there is recognition that there should be more for vocational training or general education for all age groups, including the elderly. The Minister may also want to pay tribute to the recent report by Age Concern dealing with the problems of pre- and post-retirement.
The Government lack urgency. I am not making a general attack on them, though I condemn their overall economic policies, but because of the opportunities that are being created, for whatever reason, now is the time for fresh thinking about the whole problem of post-school education.
4 am
What is the machinery for consultation between the Government, COSLA and the teaching organisations about this matter? There is no proposal before any of the organisations. Do the Government foresee any expansion in further education? Will it be in colleges or will it be achieved by using surplus school capacity? Would that involve possible capital expenditure on making schools less like the places that have clearly not appealed to many young people?
These are pertinent questions. Even if the Government have not made up their minds on them, they should at least be able to give an indication of how they see matters developing over the next year or two.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I shall follow the good example of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) and be brief. I take up where he left off by saying that there was machinery for consultation between the Government and the education authorities, but, unfortunately, in the Government's quest for the abolition of quangos, one of the first so-called quangos to be abolished was the schools-industry liaison committee at national level. I accept that the schools-industry liaison committees at local level have been retained. I well remember that in the Scottish Grand Committee we warned the Minister that he was taking a dangerous step, that there was no need to abolish the committee. It was particularly unfortunate that he went ahead with the abolition of the very machinery that my hon. Friend showed we need today.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) is owed a debt of gratitude by the House for raising this important subject, albeit at an early hour in the morning. I intend to be brief, because my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen), in an excellent speech, covered all the points that required to be covered. However, I have a responsibility to express the Opposition's view about the clause. We welcome the general principle that the hon. Gentleman rightly highlighted, but we share the reservations expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill, and to a lesser extent by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), about the wording of the clause and the possibility of its implementation.
We have heard contributions from educationists, an expression that I use not in a derogatory sense but in a collective sense. My hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill had some background in education before he came to the House—

Mr. Craigen: Only briefly. I am not an educationist.

Mr. Ewing: Nevertheless, my hon. Friend had some education experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart has spent all his working life in education.
It was noticeable that all those who contributed to the debate, with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Provan, considered that the only possibility open to us was to take the youngsters to the education, into the colleges that the hon. Member for Dundee, East suggests should be set up. Another possibility is to take the education to the youngsters in the workplace or wherever they are to be found.
One reason, apart from the Government's economic policy, why these youngsters have no job is that the education system has failed them. It is a problem with which the House has to grapple. The matter should not be


viewed in the restrictive sense of taking the youngster to the college, although that approach has merit. Hon. Members should also examine the possibility of taking education to youngsters in the workplace or wherever they may be found.
A question mark hangs over the suggestion in the new clause that a young person should be released for one day each week. There are strong reservations among educationists in further education colleges about the one-day-a-week approach. The best approach, backed by the Scottish Trades Union Congress, is block release, which enables youngsters to spend, say, a complete month on education. I enter only the caveat about examining the possibility of taking education to the youngster rather than the youngster to education.
An official Opposition spokesman is sometimes allowed the latitude of making a personal point. For some time I have been travelling along the road of believing that the apprenticeship training scheme, as known through the years, is rapidly beginning to outlive its usefulness. We should ask ourselves what happens to boys and girls on leaving school. Either they seek and find an apprenticeship or they register as unemployed. Neither should happen as we move into the middle of the 1980s. With the reducing number of children leaving school and coming on to the employment register, there is an opportunity for a fresh approach. Instead of seeking apprenticeship or registering as unemployed, these young people could register for training. This would be considered as a continuation of education but need not take place in the same establishment. I would favour using the big industrial firms in Scotland—many are to be found in my constituency—for training.
Also in my constituency, standing about 90 per cent. idle, is the workshop of 26 Command Royal Engineers. Yet it contains people who are experts in the crafts for which they have trained. Those people could contribute to the training of youngsters. The whole issue needs to be examined.
I hope that I have not given the impression to the hon. Member for Dundee, East that I am trying to kill off his new clause by damning it with faint praise. However, I doubt whether his proposition would meet the points and objectives that he wishes to achieve, which we share. For those reasons I hope that he will not push the new clause to a vote, but we are in his debt for having brought this issue before the House, albeit at such an early hour in the morning.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I have listened to the comments made by the hon. Members for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) and for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and by others. There is much common ground among hon. Members. I, too, am grateful to the hon. Member for Dundee, East for having raised this matter. I have one main objection to his proposition. However, like the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth, I feel that in itself it does not qualify my support for the principle that has been opened up for discussion.
The hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth spoke about encouraging training rather than apprenticeships. We must alter our sights. The term "apprentice" is obsolete. We should talk about traineeships or use some other similar expression. I say

that for several reasons, not least because modern industry is changing. Although there are fewer apprenticeships in a recession, that does not account for even half of our problems. As the hon. Gentleman will know, in Dundee, for example, fewer industries require the apprenticeships, particularly in engineering, that were the foundation of Scottish industry until a decade or so ago.
Industries, particularly the newer ones, have a demand for skills that is not met by the old apprenticeships. Often that demand is met by a scheme that the company has organised—perhaps in conjunction with the local college of further education—which is tailor made to that company or industry. Therefore, there is much common cause and interest between us on everything that has been said, including the comments made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen).
However, I part company with the new clause on the question of compulsion. The hon. Member for Maryhill emphasised that to impose on all employers a duty to release their young employees for a period in every week for further education or vocational training would impose a very heavy burden on industry. In talking about 16 to 18-year-olds we must remember that the more we increase the cost of employment of that age group the more we decrease their job prospects. Most hon. Members will have come across that problem in their constituencies and elsewhere.

Mr. Foulkes: The Minister is being positive in responding to the debate. I know that he feels strongly about the subject. Representations have been made by his Back-Bench colleagues in favour of some extension of an apprenticeship and training scheme. He says that he is not in favour of compulsion. How will the Government take up this matter? Instead of giving an expression of sympathy, will the hon. Gentleman let us know what action is to be taken?

Mr. Fletcher: As often happens when one gives way to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes), if he had held on he might have heard something of what we have in mind.
4.15 am
I was coming to the proposition of compulsory attendance at further education colleges. I do not believe that that would be beneficial. Compulsory education stops at 16, and so it should. Thereafter people should be volunteers, whether for further education or some other kind of training. We should give people every encouragement, but I do not think that compulsory attendance at FE colleges would be helpful. It would cause all sorts of bureaucratic problems in trying to ensure that young adults turned up for school. Often such youngsters will have been the least successful at school and would probably be the ones who would react most strongly to such an idea, having thrown off the shackles of school and, perhaps, beginning to mature.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: In the Education (Scotland) Act 1945 there was a formula of compulsion, although I would sympathise with the idea of encouragement and of making it more attractive to young people to go of their own volition. That may cost more money, but, if it is a necessary way of doing it, I would not have any objection.

Mr. Fletcher: That is the best way to do this. The important thing is to ensure that courses for further


education and vocational training are relevant to the needs of young people and are acceptable to them and their employers or prospective employers.
We recognise the need to improve the education and training of young people. The House knows that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment announced at the end of last year the expansion of unified vocational preparation schemes over the next three years for those who are in jobs but are given little or no systematic training or further education. There was also the announcement that the youth opportunites programme was to be expanded and the quality of training and education within that programme improved.
These are objectives that the Government have introduced, not as some airy-fairy scheme, but as proposals that have been backed up with considerable increases in resources to deal with the number of youngsters who have a need for training of this kind. In addition, the Government and the MSC have recently published the consultation document "The New Training Initiative", under which one of our main objectives is to improve the vocational education and training of young people.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has also been advancing the idea of the Open Tech. I have seen some examples of this in other countries, particularly the United States. I have seen young people in a small factory using closed circuit television linked to a local college, whereby they were receiving formal training related to their job or skill.

Mr. Craigen: In the light of what the Minister is saying about the Open Tech, I am a little disappointed that in the consultation document there are no "fingerprints" of the Secretary of State for Scotland, or the Secretary of State for Wales, for that matter. This subject is left to the Secretaries of State for Employment and Education and Science. I hope that there will be an input by the Scottish Office into this development. While I accept the tempering of the Minister's remarks about compulsory attendance as against voluntary attendance, and while I also accept that the concept of the time-served apprentice is on the way out, may I ask whether the Under-Secretary agrees that if the concept of standard tested traineeships is to come in there will need to be some element, if not of compulsion, at least of recognised training?

Mr. Fletcher: I quibble about compulsion, because the people who enter the schemes must be volunteers. Standards must be set, preferably national standards, to measure the standards of their achievements as a result of the training they receive. We do not want an automatic system whereby they qualify after serving for three or four years.
There is another factor that I had intended to mention earler. The age barrier is absurd. One can become an apprentice at 16 or 17 years of age, but if one is 26, 27 or older and needs to change one's occupation, one is debarred at present because of this old-fashioned and obsolete practice. That, too, has to be taken into account.
I must point out to the hon Member for Maryhill that the Scottish Office has been much involved in these schemes, not least in the development of the Open Tech. If my right hon. Friend's name is not stamped on the document that is perhaps an error of presentation. We have been closely involved in the idea and I am particulary interested in these and other developments of their kind.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East mentioned the initiative regarding the Council for Tertiary Education, which was set up by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). All that we had to do was to agree the representation, the members, and push the button. The groundwork was done by the right hon. Gentleman. Later this year we look forward to receiving the important report on tertiary education in Scotland. In some respects there is lack of organisation and unnecessary duplication of the efforts made in this connection.
I am not being complacent when I say that a lot is going on, because the challenge is great. The greatest challenge is not in setting up committees and producing new ideas and documents, whether it is the Open Tech or the tertiary council. It lies in the rigidity in the whole of education, both school and further education. More than a year ago we issued a document about the 16 to 19-year-olds for discussion and comment. An easier interchange between school and FE college is clearly desirable. Some children under 16 years may be more comfortable out of school and in a further education college. That frightens teachers' organisations, which see the already declining rolls and are frightened of losing more of their customers—if I may use that expression. More co-operation and flexibility are needed in local authorities and among teachers and lecturers if worthwhile progress is to be made.
I come back to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) and the matter of supplementary benefit in Scotland because of the school leaving dates. There may be a problem when children leave school before they are 16. I think that in Scotland they can leave school at 15 years 8 months. The benefits cannot be collected until the person is 16. However, I do not want to depend too much on my memory at this hour of the morning, so I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on the matter.
The hon. Member asked what fresh thinking there had been on further education. I have illustrated the direction in which the Government and most people wish to move. There is considerable agreement about what needs to be done. I repeat that the Government have made and are making considerable resources available for this purpose.
We tend to think that each new project requires new facilities. There are many facilities in further education colleges, training centres and universities. When I am told that there is a shortage of places or opportunities, I wonder how facilities are being used at weekends and in the evenings. There is a population bulge. If we can offer young unemployed people only some night school or weekend facilities in a training centre or company engineering workshop, we must be flexible enough to do that. The more use that we make of facilities the more readily we shall tackle the problems.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The Minister has touched on a key issue—flexibility in the use of facilities. I warn him that I shall be writing to him today about the Hall, Russell training school in Aberdeen, which, because of the drastic fall in the number of apprentices who can be taken on, is likely to close. Having put up a scheme for training with the agreement of Grampian regional council, the Aberdeen trades council and the local engineering unions, it has been told that it cannot provide the training since it does not meet the criteria of the youth opportunities programme.

Mr. Fletcher: I shall be delighted to hear from the hon. Gentleman on that subject. I shall take up the matter with


the MSC. What worries the MSC is that it is training apprentices whom the industry would normally train and it has to ensure that it is not using funds that industry might use. Some companies have good training facilities, but they are training fewer engineering or other apprentices, and not only because of the recession. One might have to knock a few heads together to try to achieve a sensible organisation.

Mr. Bill Walker: We should look carefully at Ministry of Defence facilities, because they are underused. That calls for more than knocking heads together. It calls for bringing together parties with entrenched interests which do not always operate in the best interests of the nation.

Mr. Fletcher: I accept that the Ministry of Defence has some splendid facilities. I frightened off a group of lecturers recently when I said that many good instructors in the Services are accustomed to taking in raw recruits with no technical aptitude. Because of the simple and drilled way in which the Services train people, they are capable of doing an excellent job with youngsters. I would not debar the use of Service personnel, whether on the active list or retired, from helping to train youngsters in a skill. Even at YOP's roughest level youngsters trained under that scheme have an improved chance of employment.
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to debate this subject. I hope that the new clause will not be pressed to a Division. The needs are recognised without altering legislation.

Mr. Ernie Ross: My hon. Friends and I welcome the opportunity to discuss training, especially for youngsters. I have not worked in industry for two years, and I am amazed at what has happened during that time. From my contacts in Dundee, it does not appear that apprenticeships are obsolete. Many youngsters are seeking apprenticeships, but there are not as many available. If we lose Robb Caledon in Dundee, we shall lose 100 apprenticeships that would have been available to youngsters in Dundee.
From my experience as a time-served marine engineer, I do not see any mad rush to move away from the apprenticeship scheme. Obviously I welcome all the progressive changes that have taken place. As an engineer, I would argue for the continuing need for apprenticeships in that industry, and no more so than at this time. The unified vocational preparation scheme is supported by the Labour Party. It has given youngsters, especially in the distributive trades, training and association with youngsters from other small employers, which they would not have had if the scheme had not been brought into being.
I served my apprenticeship 20 years ago in the Robb Caledon shipyard in Dundee. It was a five-year structured apprenticeship which involved training in the skills of marine engineering and attendance at technical college or some other college at least one day a week to gain certification to complement the training received on the job itself. Today, more and more firms in industry are setting out to provide job training for their apprentices. But that is still an apprenticeship. I would argue for a scheme for most firms based on the module system. I accept that

a number of firms in Dundee could not, by themselves, introduce a module scheme. Therefore, such organisations as the Dundee engineering training group are essential. I hope that the Minister will take on board the need to continue to support that group. It offers training for smaller firms that cannot provide apprenticeships.
During my period as the convener of the staff unions at Timex we introduced a technicians' course suited to the changing needs, skills and technology of Timex. It allowed apprentices undergoing module training to gain experience in the staff engineering aspects of the business, such as product engineering, process engineering and quality control engineering. They were also given commercial training so that they could develop into the new technicians needed to take advantage of the new ventures that Timex, through the initiative of both management and work force, had branched into, especially the Nimslo and the Sinclair products.
Timex, together with many other firms, has begun commercial training for production and administratie staff. That fills a gap for the 16 to 18-year olds who are taken on as office juniors or service girls but do not receive any training until they reach the age of 18 and begin work as a typist or clerk. These are all features that are welcome.
I welcome the debate. I support the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). The hon. Gentleman's new clause is similar to one that was tabled but not moved by my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes). I am sorry that they felt unable to move their clause. It would have been better suited to the debate and there might have been some agreement on both sides of the House.
The Education (Scotland) Act 1945 stated that compulsory part-time education and training should be provided for all post-school children on a date appointed by the Secretary of State. We are now 36 years on from that Act and that day has not yet been named by a Secretary of State. My hon. Friends would have been congratulated on taking the Act off the shelf and specifying a date for the introduction of the scheme. It was to have been 1 January 1982. They would have been especially congratulated on taking such action at a time when the resources represented by our young people are being tragically wasted. I think that the introduction of their new clause would have been welcomed.
Britain lags far behind other countries in providing training. In Germany, 85 per cent. of those who leave school at the statutory leaving age receive apprentice training. In France, industry is obliged to spend money on the compulsory training of young people and on adults in need of retraining. In Sweden, 85 per cent. of school leavers in the 16 to 18 age group have access to sixth form comprehensive colleges offering a wide range of training and education.
We all wish to see a high-technolgy, high-wage-earning economy developed in the last 20 years of the twentieth century. We wish to lay the foundation of economic security for all our young people. The enactment of part of the 1945 Act would have directed us down that road and given young people far greater opportunities than now exist. That Act was intended to provide for the compulsory part-time education of 16 to 18-year-olds and the right to the equivalent of two years of day release.
Last November the Secretary of State for Employment announced details of measures to help school leavers by


expanding the youth opportunities programme and asking the Manpower Services Commission to offer a suitable opportunity to unemployed school leavers by Christmas rather than the following Easter. There were also promises that the MSC would be asked to find a suitable opportunity within three months for any 16 or 17-year-old registered as unemployed for three months and that more emphasis would be placed on the young person who had completed a course or scheme within the programme, and still had no job, by giving him the chance to progress to another course or scheme.
The Opposition welcome those measures, but we still regard them as inadequate. They represent an inadequate attempt to tackle the terrible problem of youth unemployment. However, the Secretary of State said that the emphasis of the programme would not only increasingly be placed on good quality training for work, but that two-thirds of the places would provide work experience on employers' premises. As resources permit, we are trying to work towards a point where every 16 or 17-year-old not in education or a job will be assured of vocational preparation lasting, as necessary, up to his or her eighteenth birthday.
When placed alongside the intentions of the 1945 Act, these measures are puny. They are puny when set against the terrible tragedy of young people leaving school full of hope and wishing to make a contribution. They looked forward to making a contribution to society, which they hoped would welcome them into a new environment and ask them to make a contribution. They have found that all that we can offer them is the dole queue. Welcome as they are, the measures are puny when placed alongside the problem facing young people leaving school today.
In its submission the Educational Institute of Scotland said that while it welcomed the Government's commitment in principle to the aim of a comprehensive system
it cannot be achieved within a reasonable time scale on a purely voluntary basis, and that a statutory system of comprehensive, part-time further education and vocational training for all 16–18s is imperative in order to enable this country to compete on equal terms with other advanced countries that have long enjoyed the advantage of such a system.
British industry is in a mess. The television programme "Weekend World" made a programme which highlighted part of the problem facing British industry—indeed a good deal of the problem—of why we fail to match our competitors. The schools that produced the ruling classes fostered attitudes that industry was not for them and that their task was to join the Foreign Office, the legal profession or anything else but industry, which was in direct contrast to what happened on the Continent. The programme showed that those attitudes persist even today. A representative of Delta Capillary tried in vain to persuade those public school boys that they were needed in industry.
If those people are not prepared to help in the need to put Britain hack on its feet, there are plenty of people, such as the sons and daughters of working people and the young unemployed, who are prepared to help. I hope that we can give them something more than the Minister's efforts in his reply to the debate.
If there is one other area on which we must concentrate our energies, it is the need to encourage more young girls and women to take up more science-based industry. Dundee university recently ran a one-day seminar on how women could he encouraged to take up more science-based courses in university. It launched the first Scottish

campaign to recruit more women into higher education. The initial conference was held on Wednesday 14 November. It was entitled "Women and Science". It was to be followed by
a series of visits by University staff and students to local schools to encourage girls and their teachers to examine some of the reasons why women fail so conspicuously to achieve their educational career potential, and to find ways of overcoming inhibitions on their progress.
Examples were given from the engineering faculty. The numbers of undergraduate and postgraduate women entering the faculty had never risen above four in any one year, whereas in 1977 the corresponding figure for men was 144.
Examples of sex typing in the teaching professions were also given:
In 1974, women made up the whole full-time nursery school teaching staff; 88 per cent. of primary staff; 42 per cent. of secondary school staff; 35 per cent. of colleges of education staff; less than 20 per cent. of staff in Colleges and Central Institutions; 12 per cent. of staff in universities. In 1975 only 52 per cent. of primary school heads were women; 70 pet cent. of all promoted posts in secondary schools were filled by men; 97 per cent. of secondary school heads were men.
Surely another task that must be taken on by the Government when discussing training is the need to encourage more and more women to achieve their potential by staying on at school and continuing to take up science-based courses at universities and colleges.
Those of us who have served our time in manufacturing industry understand what the advantages of a disciplined apprenticeship mean to young people. It is unacceptable that many of the young people who have left school will not have the benefit or be allowed to take advantage of the apprenticeship scheme. We wish to place on record the need for the Government to try to encourage even those firms that are perhaps finding it difficult at the moment to sustain their present levels of employment and to keep up the normal uptake of apprentices. Training in skills is vital if the country is to recover and compete for trade, if the recession bottoms out.
4.45 am
Over 200,000 16-year-olds leave school each year and take jobs where no further education or planned training is available, yet there are shortages of skilled labour throughout industry. Few, if any, other industrialised countries exclude such a large proportion of their labour force from training.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of apprenticeships beyond the age acceptable to the engineering industry—say, up to the age of 30?

Mr. Ross: It is not whether I am in favour. I am not in the industry.

Mr. Walker: What is the hon. Gentleman's view?

Mr. Ross: People will need to be retrained on a number of occasions during their lives, but whether the retraining is in the form of apprenticeships depends on the industry.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The Engineering Industry Training Board put up a scheme for more flexibility in the age of entry to apprenticeships and other matters, but the employers' organisations in Scotland rejected it out of hand.

Mr. Ross: Hon. Members on both sides of the House say that apprenticeships are obsolete. It is difficult to


encourage employers to pay the rate that a man aged 30 would expect. Employers have to make that jump and overcome the problem.
I served my time in a shipyard. During my apprenticeship we progressed from using rivets to join plates together to welded sections, built in a shed. Riveters and hodders-on-those who hold on at the opposite side to the riveter who is bashing the rivet, had to be retrained within that selective industry.

Mr. Foulkes: What about catchers?

Mr. Ross: Unfortunately, catchers were not a skilled trade. In Robb Caledon shipyard they were redeployed to other manual jobs. Hodders-on and riveters were retrained as welders. That was accepted by the boilermakers society, which in those days was not keen to give up what Government Members would regard as restrictive practices. The trade unions have shown that they can respond, but the management must also respond.
The British training system is based on employers training young people in their companies to meet their business requirements. Therefore, as business prospects and company profits fluctuate, so does the intake of trainees. The arrangement adopted by the Engineering Industry Training Board and other training boards exempts from levy all firms that train to meet their own requirements and totally exempts small firms.
Such a system is bound to create an overall shortage of trained labour, because employers are keen to increase their profit levels rather than to invest in training and to poach additional skilled labour from elsewhere rather than train labour for the benefit of other firms,. Secondly, small firms which are automatically excluded from levy, are probably not training at all, preferring to attract skilled workers from other employers.
It is not only the basic training that causes concern. The Finniston report on the engineering profession, published in January 1980, recognised the inadequacy of the existing training system and proposed a massive programme to educate and retrain employees of all ages and at all levels if the human skills and support required to implement and sustain new technologies were to match demand. The Finniston committee realised that this would mean active State involvement and an extensive budget on education and training. Directly contrary to the Government's policy of cuts in educational expenditure, the Finniston committee suggested that more public money must be pumped into schools and higher education to improve the provision and standards of teaching in mathematics, physics and engineering science subjects.
Had my hon. Friends the Members for South Ayrshire and Cathcart moved their new clause, I should have said that it was a long overdue measure to link education and industry, to train young people in vitally needed skills and to end the impression that education finishes when a young person leaves school for the last time. Most of all, it would have been a serious attempt to give our young people a far better start to adult life than exists at the moment.
As hon. Members on both sides have suggested, the new clause before us, while it has allowed us to have a debate, does not really meet the needs of the young people for whom we are all showing some concern tonight. Like other hon. Members, I hope that the hon. Member for

Dundee, East will not press the new clause to a Division, although we must congratulate him on putting it down so that the debate could take place.

Mr. Foulkes: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) is one of the hodders-on in the debate tonight. I join him in congratulating the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). Thinking back to Aberdeen a few days ago, I am glad that he was able to get his teeth out of the tumbler this morning and to come and bare them at the Government.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West, I believe that the new clause is not sufficiently radical and does not go far enough. I understand, and am advised by my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench, that we shall have other opportunities to discuss this subject in the near future, perhaps in a wider-ranging way.
A number of hon. Members have spoken about the co-ordination of apprenticeships, training, continuation in school, work experience and further education. If we are to have a co-ordinated system, it is important that the financial rewards received by young people should be equivalent. Some of the problems at present arise because it is financially more advantageous for them to go into some of the least rewarding areas from the point of view of education and training. It is also important to try to achieve equality of status of young people in the various courses and some equality of equipment and facilities available so that one or other is not seen to be more advantageous from those or other points of view.
The second of the three brief points that I wish to make is that in general we have too hierarchical a further and higher education system in Scotland. It is about time that there was a radical review. We shall not get it under the present Government, but the Labour Party is committed after the next election to achieving a much more radical reform of further education and some kind of comprehensive organisation of further education, just as we had a comprehensive organisation of secondary education. The administration of further and higher education will be at one level, young people will be remunerated at similar levels, irrespective of the type of higher or further education that they undertake, and one level of teachers' salaries will apply in higher and further education. Those are far more radical changes than we could ever expect from the present Government.
Thirdly, the Government, some Labour Members and some adult members of the community have un-derestimated the time bomb that is ticking away in regard to youth unemployment. We talk and talk, but I recently met some of those young people, and they are becoming frustrated and fed up. Their sense of alienation and hostility is increasing. Their extremism is developing, as is their sense of violence. We are in grave danger of underestimating the problem.
We repeat the fact that half the number of young people coming out of school are unlikely to get a job and that the situation will get worse. We should understand what that means in human terms. Those young people have become alienated and feel that they are not wanted. They could be exploited by some of the more violent and hostile forces in society.
I hope that the compassion, concern and humanity that we need and which some Conservative Members express in words will be translated into action. At times I despair. We continue to talk about the problem, but we do not seem


to be able to cut through the Gordian knot, push away some of the red tape and get something done. I hope that we shall see some action from the Government in the near future, but I fear that that is a pretty vain hope. Perhaps the best that we can look forward to is an early election and the return of a Government with a real commitment to the radical change that is necessary.

Mr. Canavan: The intentions of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) are good. We are grateful to him for this opportunity to debate the provision of education and training for an important year group, namely, the 16 to 18-year-olds.
Yet again the Government ought to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. The Minister smiles complacently. He seems to be unaware of the fact that Britain comes near the bottom of the league of industrialised countries in this important matter of the provision of education and training for 16 to 18-year-olds.
I only hope that the Minister will look at some of the reports that have been produced by the OECD, the Common Market and other organisations, because the number of young British people undergoing full-time education or training is an abysmal disgrace. The proportion is very low indeed.
The Under-Secretary is supposed to be in charge of industry as well as education. At the time of his appointment, I remember saying that it was the first time that I could recall when a Scottish Office Minister had been given dual responsibility for industry and education. I said that it presented the hon. Gentleman with a tremendous challenge and opportunity to achieve better liaison between industry and education on meaningful training programmes such as those that we have been discussing. But instead the Minister's two jobs have proven to be too big for him, because he has failed in both: he has failed Scottish education, and he has failed Scottish industry. We are now seeing a decline in both of them as a result of his incompetence.
5 am
One of the saddest reflections of the failure of Scottish industry can be seen in the unemployment levels. I think that the most recent figures released were those of 14 May. The Scottish figure then was 286,200. The number of school leavers out of work was 12,900, but already that figure is out of date, because since 14 May many young people have left school after sitting their examinations. Many more will be leaving within the next two or three weeks. The Minister seems oblivious to the fact that many of these young people are leaving school with virtually no hope of getting a meaningful job. We shall see a catastrophic increase in that figure of 12,900 unemployed school leavers the next time the figures are released by the Government.
Various bodies have come out in favour of improvement of provision for the 16 to 18 age group. For example, the policy of the Educational Institute of Scotland is that all young people aged 16 to 18 should be engaged full time in education, training or employment, or a combination of those, and that all young people in employment should receive part-time education. Many other bodies, including various unions affiliated to the Scottish TUC, and the Scottish TUC itself, are in favour of policies on similar lines.
I have a certain sympathy with the intentions behind the new clause, but perhaps I may be constructively critical

of it in some respects. It seems that it would make it compulsory for employers to make provision for young persons to spend one day of each working week at established colleges. That appears to be a little inflexible, bearing in mind the various kinds of block release courses, and so on, which for some trades are prevalent and have certain advantages over laying down provisions, as the new clause would do, in a statute, that the form of compulsory training or education should be one day every week. Perhaps the hon. Member for Dundee, East will agree with me that to make a rigid statutory obligation might be less preferable than adopting a more flexible method that might lead to better education and training, rather than having an absolute norm of one day per week.
The new clause provides for the attendance of unemployed young people for at least one day per week at "established colleges". I am not sure what "established colleges" means. I do not like the word "establishment" much. There is a good case for widening the role of some of the educational institutions, particularly colleges of education, to cater for the 16 to 18-year-old age group. New clause 6 is too inflexible for my liking, but I accept that the hon. Member for Dundee, East had good intentions in moving it.
Several hon. Members have referred to the better use of existing training facilities. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) referred to the excellent apprenticeship training facilities that exist under the auspices of the Ministry of Defence in Stirling. Many of my former pupils went there. Although some of them may no longer be employed in the Ministry of Defence, they all spoke highly of the training that they received in that establishment. I suggest that some of the facilities which may be under-used in such placers—

Mr. Harry Ewing: Badly under-used.

Mr. Canavan: Badly under-used, as my hon. Friend says—should be extended to young people. They may not be interested in a career in the Ministry of Defence as such, but the facilities that exist within a Government Department could be used to train young people, some of whom may want to go out into the broader field of industry. They should be encouraged to do that. I have consistently advocated the transfer of resources from defence to manufacturing industry. That would be a meaningful way of using an existing MOD establishment to train young people, so that even when the economy picks up, even though the MOD may not want to use the skills, they will be trained and adaptable. I am assured that the training they get makes them very adaptable, not just to Ministry of Defence work, but to work in many other industries. That would be a practicable way of training young people for industry.
One of the sad features of the decline of British industry, which has been accelerated by the disastrous policies of the Government, is that even when the economy begins to pick up and when some regeneration of industry becomes possible the opportunities will be limited, because we shall not have the trained work force available to take full advantage of that upturn in the economy. We should be concentrating our resources on training, particularly for young people. There may not be an immediate prospect of their skills being put to full use. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) said, we shall have to wait for a change of


Government before the economy picks up. We cannot afford to wait in the hope that matters will right themselves and that everything will work all right. We must invest in training instead of allowing our young people to roam the streets and hang around street corners. We should give them some meaningful purpose in life, by training them.
I accept some of the points made by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker). I do not always agree with him, but I think that we need a radical rethink not only about training those aged 16 to 18 but about retraining older people and having a more flexible system of entry and re-entry into certain trades. There may be difficulties, but that is worth aiming at.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire that this is one of the biggest challenges facing us. We are in danger of alienating hundreds of thousands of young people, because mass unemployment is bad for the whole of society. Young people in particular, who have never had work experience, and have never had the opportunity to find a useful role in life, will feel increasing resentment against the society, the Government and the Parliament that have denied them those opportunities.
Unless we respond to young people's needs, I fear that some young people may, unfortunately—I would never condone this—feel tempted to take their resentment against society out in a very anti-social way that I hope no hon. Member on either side of the House would like to see. We should think about their future, because the future of our civilisation and our society lies in their hands. If we deny them these opportunities, it will be our fault if our standards of civilisation crumble as a result.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 8

STANDING REVIEW BODY ON TEACHERS' PAY

'For Section 91 to 97 of the principal Act there shall be substituted the following sections—

"Pay and conditions of teaching staff employed in providing school and non-university post school education

After consultation with appropriate bodies the Secretary of State shall set up a Standing Review Body to make annual recommendations on the pay and conditions of service of staff employed in providing school and non-university post-school education, recognised teachers' unions, local authorities the Secretary of State and other interested bodies shall be entitled to make submissions on the level of teachers' pay and matters relating to conditions of service to the Standing Review Body.
Decisions of the Standing Review Body shall be binding on all parties including the Secretary of State for Scotland.".'.—[Mr. Foulkes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Foulkes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this we shall take the following amendments:
No. 80, in page 40, line 16, leave out clause 14.
No. 109, in page 58, line 23, leave out schedule 5.

Mr. Foulkes: As the sun rises over London some aspects of Scottish education are still in a Conservative twilight, but on this matter I have high hopes of a breakthrough—high hopes that we shall be able to get the Minister to see reason. We have not had many breakthroughs on the Bill, either in Committee or on

Report. The Minister's instransigence is resulting in the backlash from the Opposition. We are getting fed up because, in spite of all the reasoned and reasonable arguments advanced day after day in Committee and hour after hour on Report, we are getting nothing out of the Government other than arrogant statements made around the country and inflammatory comments.
Our suggestion in the clause is made in response to a growing feeling in the country, on both the management and the teachers' sides, that the system for reviewing the pay and conditions of service of teachers in Scotland should be changed. I speak from a little experience in the teachers' salaries and conditions of service committees in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) speaks from experience on the other side of another negotiating body.
5.15 am
I have been accused in some places of being a management lackey and of taking the local authority view over teachers' pay. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) did not always see me as a lackey of St. Andrew's House or management generally. I represented 12 local authorities, nine regions and three island councils and had the privilege to serve as chairman of the management side which dealt with teachers' salaries and conditions. It is necessary often to represent particular interests, particular consensus decisions and verdicts reached by majority vote on the management side with which one does not agree. That is a burden that one undertakes on the management side. The new clause would substantially remove that aspect of the matter.
Our experience in relation to teachers' salaries and conditions of service was not always happy. There have been industrial relations problems in Scotland. There have been strikes which did not occur south of the border. Discussions and negotiations have not always been friendly. On the other hand, some constructive progress has been made, resulting in the teacher's contract that provides some security and a framework for teachers that does not exist south of the border. Although there have been problems, some constructive work has been achieved.
A feeling has existed for some time that legislation should be introduced to bring together the committees on teachers' salaries and on conditions of service if the two bodies are to continue. I welcome the minor but long-overdue improvements that have been made. It is, however, the general view outside the Chamber that the time has come for more radical change in Scottish education. This has been motivated by experience during Houghton and post-Houghton. That exercise undoubtedly improved the pay of teachers both in Scotland and south of the border.
I recognise that unfortunate problems arose at the time. My right hon. Friend the Member for Craigton will have a stark and vivid recollection of those problems. The teachers were anxious and impatient about the outcome. All will agree, however, that once Houghton reported, teachers were placed on acceptable scales of pay. In subsequent years, however, the teachers saw their position being eroded. Artificial cash limits were imposed and a concordat reached between local authorities and the


Secretary of State. As a result, teachers have formed the view that a standing review body would be more acceptable for settling their pay.
I made this proposal over a year ago. I was pleasantly surprised to discover the huge amount of support that it received from the Educational Institute of Scotland and officers of the institute. Subsequently, they pursued the idea with the Secretary of State. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that he has received submissions from the EIS to the effect that a standing review body would be a more appropriate way of dealing with teachers' pay and conditions of service. Indeed, the Minister would seem to be nodding his head vigorously for this time on a Tuesday morning.
There has been and always will be conflict between the role of a professional organisation that looks after the professional interests of teachers and the role of a trade union. When teaching associations are constrained to take industrial action, pressures fall on them. They have to consider how that industrial action will affect schoolchildren. That is a strong constraint. In many ways teachers are in the same position as doctors, nurses and the Armed Forces. They are told that if they take industrial action they will harm young children and their education and, that, by definition, the children will never be able to return again to that educational stage. Obviously they can never be the same age again. It is said that they will lose that education for ever and will be irreparably damaged.
Local authorities and the Secretary of State exert strong moral pressures on teachers. My hon. Friends and myself agree that either extrinsically or intrinsically such pressure is put on them. It is said that teachers should not strike. Therefore, if we wish to put them in the same category as doctors, nurses and members of the Armed Forces the inescapable conclusion must be something along the lines that has been suggested.
We are in the middle of a problem with civil servants. The Government say that they should not take industrial action because they have responsible jobs. They say that if the civil servants take action they will harm many people and undermine their professional reputation. No doubt that is why the Conservative Government of 1971 systematically established a number of review bodies for certain categories. In July 1971 the Government established the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration. Its distinguished members include members of the great and good, who always get co-opted or nominated to such positions. They are not revolutionaries, activists or infiltrators. However, as the chap in charge of the Queen's paintings turned out to be on the other side, one begins to wonder.
The list of the great and good includes Sir Robert Clark, chairman of the review body, Professor Graveson, Sir Peter Menzies, Professor Moore, Mrs. Rumboldt, CBE—she is a respectable sounding lady—Sir William Slimmings, Professor G. F. Thomason and Sir Graham Wilkins. That review body is the type of thing that we are discussing in relation to teachers' pay.
Similarly the Review Body on Armed Forces Pay, which was set up in September 1971, includes a list of apparently respectable people, such as Sir Harold Atcherley, Dr. Ewan McEwan, Dame Rosemary Murray, Sir John Read, Baroness Sharples, and Air Chief Marshal Sir Ruthven Wade, KCB, DFC. The Review Body on Top Salaries and the Civil Service Pay Research Unit also exist. Until recently I had thought that the Government

would automatically accept that body as one that gave impartial advice and guidance on the salaries of professional people whose withdrawal of labour would cause tremendous problems. Successive Governments have exerted constant moral pressure on such people not to take industrial action.
What we are suggesting is not a revolutionary change. We are suggesting that the Secretary of State should set up the body and that he should make the decision about the great and the good people he chooses to be on it, after consultation with the various interests involved. We suggest that there should be an annual recommendation. That is something that the teachers consider to be vitally important. It would ensure that matters did not drag on.
We also suggest that pay and conditions of service should be taken together. We are suggesting that the body should deal with school teachers and, to use the precise and descriptive, if not elegant, phrase that my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart advises me is appropriate, with the non-university post-school teachers. We are suggesting that the unions, the Secretary of State and the local authorities should be the people principally involved—the unions on behalf of their members, the Secretary of State representing the public interest, the wider economic interest—representing the views of Government—and the local authorities as the employers of the teachers. They should be the principal people making submissions to the review body.
It would be open to other bodies to make recommendations, but I do not think that they would carry as much weight. We are also suggesting that the body should make a recommendation taking account of the various submissions, from the Government about the economic situation and pay policy generally, from the local authorities, and from the teachers' unions about what their members need to keep up with inflation and to take account of all the other changes in their circumstances. We suggest that the recommendation of the review body should be binding on all parties so that the Secretary of State does not have, as is the case, an override provision whereby he takes part in all the other processes but decides, if he does not like what is recommended, to override the decision and say "I reject this". That is unacceptable. That provision was strongly attacked in Committee and never adequately defended by the Minister.
We suggest that this body of distinguished people should make recommendations that are binding on all the parties. We admit that such a proposal has dangers for the teachers' unions. Such a body will not automatically come out in favour of everything they want. Nor will it come out in favour of everything the local authorities or the Secretary of State wants. We think that it is reasonable to set up a body that will have all the evidence made available to it and that will be as impartial as is possible and take account of all the factors and make recommendations.
I hope that the clause will be seen as a genuine attempt to put forward a new dimension to the discussion about teachers' salaries and conditions of service in Scotland. It will, I think, find general acceptance among teachers and local authorities. It will remove teachers' salaries and conditions of service from the hurly-burly of negotiations, the day-to-day discussions, when many matters raised cause unnecessarily complicated discussions because of the way the machinery is structured. I hope that the clause


will be seen as a positive contribution to creating better industrial relations in education in Scotland and to providing a much better and fairer hearing for teachers.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I intervene at this stage to respond to the initiative of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes), who, as he reminded the House, has been putting forward this proposal for more than a year, and I know that he feels strongly about it.
Clause 14 reduces the number of negotiating committees to two—one for school, and one for postal education—and for the first time they will embrace both salaries and conditions of service. When we discussed the matter in Committee, the hon. Member, unlike most of his colleagues, supported the combination of the two functions. I am grateful to him for that.
The hon. Member described the new clause as radical but not revolutionary. I agree that it is not revolutionary, but I shall not comment on whether it is radical, because there are a number of precedents for a committee of this kind. However, the new clause lacks one important ingredient in any type of negotiations—namely, that the negotiations must matter equally to both sides and both sides must have the same responsibility in the negotiations.
The danger with machinery of this kind is that we bring together some great and good people—as the hon. Gentleman described them—to try to establish and recommend a sum that they think will be fair and acceptable. No doubt they try to apply some measure of public interest to that, but the difficulty with any machinery of this kind is that the arbiters are not themselves responsible for finding the money to make the payment. It is an important responsibility of management to conduct negotiations of this kind within the resources that are available to it. Anyone who tries to settle wages should also have to find the money. The absence of that has led, in some of the cases that the hon. Gentleman outlined, albeit with the best of intentions, to most unsatisfactory settlements from the point of view of the economy of the country.
Additional resources do not become available simply because teachers' pay, for example, has been fixed by an independent review body. We cannot give an open-ended undertaking on behalf of the Government and teachers' employers to underwrite any pay increase that an independent pay commission might award. Employers should weigh the merits of pay claims against their other commitments and in the light of the resources that are available to them.
It is, therefore, preferable for employers to conduct their own negotiations with teachers. That is their responsibility. They have charge of substantial resources. About one-third of the funds available come from ratepayers. I correct the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). I am not an employer of teachers. Teachers are employed by the local authorities, which manage our education system. They have to raise one-third of the funds from rates. The other two-thirds come from rate support grant. They are responsible for resources covering vast amounts of capital expenditure. They must find the balance for pay increases within their resources.

Mr. Maxton: In a legal sense the Minister is correct to say that he is not an employer of teachers. However, in the central institutions and colleges of education he is the sole provider of resources for the payment of lecturers. He is also a full member of all the salaries committees and he intends to continue to be. If he argues that management should have full responsibility, what is he doing on the committees?

Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman made a marginal point and then spoilt it. The Secretary of State is an employer of the relatively few people employed by the central institutions and colleges, but the majority of teachers and lecturers are employed by the local authorities. We believe that the employer, in allocating resources, has a responsibility to decide what part of the resources should go in salary increases. That is a management responsibility. In the local and national interest, that responsibility is best conducted by those who manage the education system. That is why I cannot accept the proposition.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Those of us who have been Members for a number of years will have a sense of having been here before, not once, but perhaps three or four times. I recall the period between 1970 and 1974, when the same argument was used about the great resentment within the teaching profession. Then it was said that teachers' salaries were falling behind and that their living standards were dropping in relation to inflation.
The argument was at its height when the Labour Government took office in 1974. I had the privilege of being a Minister in that Government. I was Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for education, among other matters. I still have the scars. I recall one of my first meetings as a Minister with representatives of the teaching profession. The case was put forcefully that for almost a decade teachers' salaries and conditions had diminished and that that was resented. They pointed out that the days when the teaching professions were made up of people who enjoyed security of tenure and a status in society that carried them through many salary problems had long since passed. They said that inflation was proceeding at a pace, which is almost exactly the same argument that we hear now. They wanted action to prevent the constant falling behind.
When I returned from the meeting at St. Andrew's House and reported to my colleagues at the Scottish Office, we felt that something had to be done for teachers. We decided to look at the system and the Government machinery. The teachers asked for an independent review of their salaries. They said bluntly that they did not care which party was in office. They did not trust any Government to undertake an honest review. They would trust only an independent review body. The proposition was fed into the Government machine—I put it no higher than that—and as a result of negotiations in Cabinet the Houghton committee was established. It considered the salaries of teachers not only in Scotland but in England.
We went through a difficult period when the teaching professions wanted the review to be undertaken. They were anxious that it should not take too long. The leaders of the teaching unions came under severe pressure from younger members, who felt the ravages of inflation and the difficulties more seriously than their colleagues higher up


the pay scale. Eventually they asked for guarantees that the Government would meet the cost of the Houghton committee.
It is worth recalling that, while all that was taking place, a general election was looming. The Government had a narrow majority. It may be that general elections, like hanging or reselection, concentrate the mind wonderfully. I am not sure about that. However, as a result of discussions among ministerial colleagues in the Scottish Office we reached the conclusion that we were prepared to meet the cost of Houghton. But that was not sufficient.
5.45 am
I come to the first of the flaws in the new clause. I have great sympathy with the view that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) puts forward in the new clause, but I am not sure that I can give him my wholehearted support. A flaw occurred when the teaching professions said that not only did they want the Government to meet the cost of Houghton, but that they wanted a global sum of money made available so that they could decide how the cake would be divided. That is a respectable trade union viewpoint—to see the size of the cash and the colour of the money. Having seen that, they wanted to determine how it should be shared. As a trade unionist all my working life, that appeared to be a reasonable proposition.
I was given the job of writing an article for an educational journal about that point. The decision was a Government responsibility. We agreed to meet the cost of Houghton and allow the matter to go before the Scottish teachers' salaries committee for discussion about the allocation of the money. In other words, if the teaching unions were dissatisfied with the amount of money being allocated to the lower end of the teaching pay scale they could raise it, but only within the global amount. I do not think that the leaching unions in Scotland gave the Labour Government credit for setting up the Houghton committee, for meeting their responsibilities and for agreeing to their suggestion that they should have a say on how the money should be shared out. They may say that that was a privilege. I think that it was not a privilege but a right. It was a right that was not extended south of the border.
Some of my hon. Friends talk about the way in which the Government are centred in Whitehall and how we in Scotland are dragged by the coat tails by the Secretary of State for Education and Science in England. They should remember the Houghton experience. My then right hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Prentice) was the Secretary of State for Education and Science. He made it clear to the National Union of Teachers that it must accept Houghton in total or not at all. That caused a great deal of resentment. In negotiations on salaries there are those who want to have their cake and eat it at the same time. They want both ends of the candle and they cannot have them.
The result of the Houghton committee led to Scottish Ministers giving the Scottish teachers the best deal that they had had for a long time. I do not believe thay they have had such a good deal since. Some of the attacks that are made on the Labour Government from that quarter are greatly misplaced.
After the Houghton committee reported we had further discussions with the teaching unions. We said that there was a danger of teachers' salaries—this applies also to other professions—falling behind year after year because

Governments would not always have the necessary cash for salaries. We argued a responsible case. We said to the unions immediately post-Houghton that they should bend their minds to establishing a review body that made some sense. I regret that in the euphoria of post-Houghton the opportunity was missed. I do not think that the unions did enough at that time to bend their minds to how they could ensure that the process was not repeated. However, it has been repeated and it seems likely that it will be repeated time after time.
I accept that we must have some form of review body. However, I am worried by the final sentence of the new clause, which states:
Decisions of the Standing Review Body shall be binding on all parties including the Secretary of State for Scotland.
I do not believe that any responsible trade union would accept submitting evidence to a review body that would become totally binding on it. Unions properly reserve the right to try to negotiate around whatever the review body recommends.
I agree with the Minister—some of my hon. Friends may not like this—that we cannot bind the Secretary of State for Scotland or the employers on the total sum. Sometimes in our discussions on pay and on salaries we have a responsibility to make it clear to those in the employ of the Government that there is not a bottomless purse at a time of severe priorities to which we must attend.
That case should be argued. Sometimes it is a matter of saying to trade unions involved in public service that there is a problem and money is needed to refurbish schools and to invest in adult education or whatever it happens to be. There is only so much that can be spent, and the trade unions may be asked to hold back for a temporary period.
The problem with all the permanent review bodies that have been set up is that not one of them in the last 10 years has seen the total amount of money it has recommended paid in every case. There was a year when the Labour Government did not meet the doctors' and dentists' review body recommendations for the medical profession—and rightly so, I believe.
If we are asking people to make a sacrifice, as we were during the time of the Labour Government, those who are in the top echelons of the pay scale must make their sacrifice as well. The trouble is that once one sets up the permanent review body, especially with a clause which says at the end that
Decisions of the Standing Review Body shall be binding on … the Secretary of State for Scotland",
how does one get out of the situation when the conditions set by the review body cannot be met?
That is the hook on which the Government have impaled themselves in relation to the Civil Service. They arbitrarily scrapped the Pay Research Unit. They did not do so by negotiation. If one sets up a review body, there must be some way of negotiating around it. I make it clear that I am not defending the Government in the Civil Service dispute. It is scandalous that they decided to scrap the Pay Research Unit, tried to impose cash limits and then said that the matter would be discussed next year.
We must be extremely careful about setting up permanent review bodies that make binding recommendations because they take away the element of negotiation and build up resentment. If the Government say later


"Sorry boys, we will not accept your recommendation this year because it is binding", presumably there will have to be legislation that unbinds it.
When dealing with something as sensitive as education, one has to be careful. I concede that in this debate I shall make more enemies than friends. However, I have waited a long time for the opportunity to discuss the issue.

Mr. Maxton: The press is not here at this time of the morning.

Mr. Hughes: I do not care whether the press is here. Perhaps it is a pity that we are discussing the matter at this time in the morning, when the light of day should be shed on it.
I shall never forgive the teaching unions for hitting the working-class areas when they went on strike. They know that, as I have told them it before. The teachers in the well-off schools in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen did not come out on strike. They made sure that that part of education was covered. The areas of deprivation suffered more. In criticising that and saying that it was wrong, perhaps we should understand that teachers in deprived areas—without being unkind or patronising—often have material which does not seem to be much interested in education, and there may be difficult classes and circumstances and a shortage of staff. The resentment bit deep into those teachers who had struggled for years to try to improve education in those areas where they were being given a kick in the teeth. That is why my hon. Friends should be careful about what they are doing.
I sympathise with, understand and support the idea of a review body regularly to report on what is happening and to provide a firm, factual basis for negotiations, but I hope that a Labour Government would not set up a review body on such terms, believing that easy choices can be made over public expenditure. Things will be much more difficult. Under this Government public services have been destroyed. What is worse, as a consequence resentment is building up among public service employees that will be difficult to dissipate.
Ever since they came to office the Government have attacked public service employees as being in well paid jobs for which everyone would clamour. They blame many of our economic problems on the number and pay of public sector workers. I do not refer to the current dispute. Teachers are also public sector employees. The attack is driven home that public sector workers are overpaid, underworked, there are too many of them and they are not doing their job. The resentment has gone deep. Teachers' disillusionment with the Government over pay is deeper now than it was in 1974 and when we were trying to resolve matters in relation to Houghton. We must not give the impression that we are making promises that we may not be able to keep.
Let us try to establish a review body to provide a factual base so that we can look at teachers' pay with sobriety and without allegations that the Government are trying to cook the books. That is essential if we are to have proper negotiations. Governments have at times sheltered behind the concordat with the employers. This Government have become more and more involved in the total amount of money available.
Anyone with experience in pay negotiations knows that free collective bargaining is a bit of a myth. The employer

knows how much money he is prepared to make available. The only way to establish trust in negotiating Scottish teaching salaries is for the Government not to hide behind concordats but to try to make the money available. They must not arbitrarily set a rigid cash limit. That approach leads to disaster. They must negotiate on the sum available. The Government must be flexible, and part of the money may have to come from rates. The Government must come clean. They are represented—and will continue to be under the Bill—on the Scottish teachers' salaries committee. They should declare their hand and not have phoney negotiations. If our education system is to progress, we must get salaries right.
I understood my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire to say that many people in the teaching profession had come round to the idea of some kind of review body, but I should be very surprised if they had come round to the view that a review body in the terms of the new clause would be acceptable.
This has been a valuable discussion and there is certainly merit in the new clause as far as it goes, but I certainly could not support it if it were pressed to a Division so long as the last sentence remains in it. I hope that this very valuable discussion will carry on from here. The problem will return time and again to haunt us, and it will destroy us if we do not get it right.

6 am

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) made a most interesting speech. He sounded a little bitter about his experiences with teachers. Frankly, I do not blame him. That was a particularly unfortunate period, post-Houghton, with an ungraciousness about it that was almost bewildering, considering that the Houghton recommendations were the best on record. I know that both my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) were deeply involved in it.
This is yet another debate that merits a better time and certainly a larger audience. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) will now appreciate why I was girning at him earlier rather than wasting time on the trivial stuff, because this is fundamental to the future of education.
My excuse again is a constituency one to some extent. I received a telegram. I do not know how many other hon. Members received telegrams. I have a very active office-bearer of the NAS/UWT, who is a constituent as well as a teacher in one of the secondary schools. The telegram reads as follows:
Request support in opposing attempt to impose statutory control of teachers' conditions. Urge support for genuine voluntary negotiations.
Quite honestly, I am not sure whether that means that I am supposed to support the new clause or not, because in the light of what my hon. Friend said it is not a voluntary arrangement that is proposed. Without further guidance from the union concerned, therefore, I have decided not to support the new clause.
To me, one of the tragedies of the teaching profession is that there are three organisations representing the teachers. They are even worse than engine drivers, and that is saying something. I am always amazed, considering the calibre of some of the people involved in leading the teachers' organisations—I do not mean merely the current leaders—that better efforts have not been used to get the


organisation together. To me, that is a constant reminder that a good education does not necessarily imply common sense. It is one of the tragedies of an undoubtedly difficult situation. To some extent it is related to the problem highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North. That is to say, there is always the dilemma of carving up the cake in accordance with some academic qualification rather than the skills that are required and, indeed, the more difficult tasks that some teachers have in certain areas.
I do not wish to take up any more of the time of the House on this matter at this time of the morning, but my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North missed one important point in that difficult period, namely, the fact that the miners had just brought down a Conservative Government. That may or may not have been a good thing. To me, anything that brings down a Conservative Government is a good thing, but there was a price to be paid, in the so-called increase in militancy in organisations that felt that that industrial muscle was the only way to get justice. It would be unfortunate it that were the only factor that determined the success or otherwise of a wage claim. If that were so—and there is a lot of truth in it—it would mean that some other deserving occupations would hardly ever get a decent wage award.
I address my remarks to my hon. Friends, because the Government have nothing to contribute in this regard. They are totally incapable of arriving at solutions that would be accepted by the trade union movement or the Labour movement generally. I often wonder whether we shall ever be able to do it, but certainly the Conservative Party will not be able to do it.
Challenges face us. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire should know better. He should not try to deceive people. He should face the crucial question that has been faced by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North, namely, whether or not the Government of the day should have an overall veto. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire might be in Government some day. Perhaps he does not think that it matters, but he should make up his mind, because he may have to decide on such issues. On the basis of common sense and justice, the Government of the day must have the veto.
I do not dress the matter up in elegant language by mentioning such things as salaries committees. At the end of the day that part of the machinery that finds the bulk of the money will call the tune. We therefore deceive ourselves as well as the teachers if we think that some kind of review body—be it for the teachers, the Armed Forces, the police, doctors, dentists, Members of Parliament or top salaried people—is the answer. I know of no Government who would give a commitment in advance that they would inevitably accept the total findings of such a review body. In any case, it would not make sense to do so.
That is why I believe in an incomes policy. I am not afraid to say that. I only wish that some of my so-called Left-wing colleagues would face this question. [Interruption.] I do not want to get bogged down in an argument about whether the Labour Government's incomes policies were right. In principle, there must be an incomes policy.
Whether or not we accept the need for one, we should realise that one always exists in the public sector. Therefore, it is grossly unfair not to recognise that we should have some kind of machinery to embrace the private sector as well. We should accept that an incomes

policy exists in the public sector, because we shall never get sanity in wage negotiations and industrial relations until we recognise that basic fundamental fact.
The nonsense talked about free collective bargaining has done more harm to a sound basis for planning a future Socialist society than any other piece of sloganising of which I know.

Mr. Ernie Ross: My hon. Friend talks about an incomes policy in the public sector. It is clear that the money that a Government can assemble, either through taxes or other means, amounts to a global sum. If we accept that a Government can pay only so much in wage increases, we hope that the money that is left will be used constructively in other areas.
However, it is nonsense to compare the public sector with the private sector, because if an incomes policy were applied to a private company there would be no guarantee that it would use the remaining money constructively. In fact, during the 1975 "con trick" the resources were not used constructively. They were invested overseas and eventually worked against us.

Mr. Brown: I am not attempting to justify all that happened in the past. I am trying to suggest that we need an incomes policy or some kind of body that will look at the contribution that workers make to society. We must take into account the different skills, the length of training, the apprenticeship, the motivation, and the dangerous nature of some occupations. We must take these into account in a rational manner, irrespective of whether it be for private industry or the public sector.
I do not have time to go into greater detail about that. All that I am saying is that this is one of the fundamental facts that Socialists should accept. We should not be dependent on the fact that an industry in the private sector is profitable. For instance, the tobacco and whisky industries are profitable. It has not been militancy that has achieved high earnings in some industries; it is the fact that, for historical and other reasons, they have been profitable. If we beg these questions we do no service to those whom we hope to represent in the future.
I do not know whether the Opposition Front Bench will be giving us any guidance on the new clause, or whether they have given up. I shall make up my own mind, as usual. I cannot see myself supporting the new clause.

Mr. Maxton: So far, this has been a very interesting debate. Is my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) muttering "It now ceases to be so"?
It is to be regretted that the Minister responsible for education in Scotland made his intervention so early and, presumably for good reasons, has had to leave the Chamber. If he had listened to two ex-Ministers of the Scottish Office he might have learnt some lessons. They made very interesting contributions. I did not agree with everything that they said, although I make it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown), in contradiction to what my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) may say, that, as a Socialist, I believe in an incomes policy. One cannot talk of an organised, planned society in which one ignores and omits one important element—incomes. Everyone roust accept that.
For a long time I negotiated in the public sector. I am very well aware that there is always an incomes policy in the public sector, even more so than with teachers. I


negotiated essentially in an area in which the total amount of money available was given by the Government and did not come from rates or anything else. It came direct from the Government. Therefore, it was always under the constraint of what the Government felt able to give at any point.
Although I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West, that if one has an incomes policy that applies to those in the public sector and no incomes policy in the private sector one finds that the public sector falls behind and, as a result, difficulties develop between the two sectors. This is a very difficult question for many of us. We must look at it very seriously.
The debate has been interesting, too, because I think that we have had—and we will continue to have—contributions from the three broad aspects that make up teachers' negotiations and salary negotiations in education in Scotland. The management side of local authorities has been represented by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes). A previous Government has been represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), who was a Minister in charge of education and who for about eight years was involved in salary negotiations for a relatively small sector of education. We had responsibility for negotiating for that sector solely, without interference from any other unions. Therefore, we can bring considerable experience to bear across the spectrum to the debate. My hon. Friends are right in saying that it is a pity that the debate is taking place so early in the morning.
6.15 am
The debate covers the amendments that seek to delete clause 14 and schedule 5. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire believed that he tabled the amendments to facilitate his new clause. In broad terms, he has reservations about certain aspects. He accepted clause 14 and the schedule. I do not accept clause 14. I accept some parts of it, but I would probably reject more, and I therefore accept amendment No. 80 in its own right. There are strong arguments for saying that now, though not for ever, we should delete clause 14 and schedule 5 so that we can have a better discussion. This morning we have started a better discussion on how to carry out salary negotiations in Scotland.
I shall briefly give my reasons why I think that clause 14 should be deleted. There are three main reasons. There are always dangers in saying "three", because either one forgets one of them or remembers a fourth and a fifth. I shall try to limit myself to three, or try to remember three.
First, I do not believe that there has been proper consultation on the new negotiating machinery in the Bill. That may seem surprising to some hon. Members and to my hon. Friends, because the Houghton committee reported in December 1974 and the sort of negotiating machinery and the way in which it has been structured was largely drawn from the recommendations of the committee at that time.
It may be thought that in nearly seven years some consultation must have occurred. For six of those years I was a member of the negotiating committee and for four of them the chairman of the union involved in the area. I cannot remember—I have spoken to colleagues who are still in that union, and they cannot remember either—any

occasion when we have spoken either to Ministers or to Ministers' advisers about this new negotiating machinery. Immediately after Houghton we were invited to produce a written submission, but thereafter there was no discussion. The teachers and the local authorities pressed the Labour Government and then this Government for the machinery to be introduced. When it finally comes it will be a fait accompli, laid down in the Bill without the smaller unions being involved in the discussions. There may have been discussion with the EIS, but the smaller unions affected have not been consulted.
It would be preferable if the clause were removed so that consultation could take place. If we are to have negotiating machinery it must be accepted fully by both sides. They should work it out together with the Secretary of State and agree that that is the best way in which to operate. That should have happened.
My second reason for reservations about clause 14 is the Secretary of State's power under it. My hon. Friend the Member for Provan raised some interesting points abut the Government's veto and their place in the negotiating machinery. I do not disagree, but he was a little scornful of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire, saying that he must be realistic.
One of the problems that underlie the present negotiations, and will underlie the negotiations again under this provision, is that the Secretary of State uses his veto behind the cloak—almost hidden in secret—of the management sides, whether they be local authorities or the governing bodies of colleges of education or central institutions. Every time the teachers say "You are the employer therefore you must be involved", we hear—as the Minister said in an intervention—"We do not employ any teachers at all in Scotland. We are not the employer". But under the negotiating machinery, both as it is now and as it will be established under this provision, the Secretary of State will clearly have a veto.
All of us who were involved in the salary negotiations in the past—and this will continue to be true—knew that despite the fact that there might be 10 other people on the management side, representing local authorities and boards of governors of colleges of education and central institutions, the person that one was really talking to was the Secretary of State's nominee on the negotiating committee concerned. He is the person who will have the ultimate responsibility of deciding what sum of money will be made available. Even in the local authority area there is little that the rest of the management side can put forward as an offer to the trade union concerned. The matter is almost entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State's nominees.
Time and again throughout the teachers' dispute last year the Secretary of State said at the Dispatch Box "It is not my responsibility. It is the responsibility of the local authorities to settle the matter." Yet everyone knew that of course it was his responsibility; that he was the person deciding how much money should be spent.
It is not only the power that I object to in clause 14. I object to the fact that the Secretary of State will decide the maximum number of persons on each side. He will decide who shall be invited in the first instance to come on to the committee. One small point—the subject of a later amendment—is that he will be able to invite representatives of bodies that he considers to represent teachers. As a trade unionist I strongly object to that. The Secretary of State should invite to represent teachers only


trade unions recognised under the law and recognised as affiliates of the Scottish TUC, not hotchpotch bodies that have few members but seem to have inordinate influence.
The Secretary of State becomes a full member of the management side. He sets up the committee and decides who will sit on it, and he will now become a full member of it. He wants to have his say, although he will deny that anything that it does is his responsibility.
When the committee makes a decision on the salary award, or if there is a dispute between the two sides over the award, the matter will go to arbitration. As a member of the management side the Secretary of State will have a say in deciding whether it should go to arbitration, and some say in settling the remit of the arbiter. Once the arbiter decides on the award, the Secretary of State wants another bite at the cherry. He wishes to be able to say that he does not accept the arbitration decision. He also has the right to say that he does not accept the pay settlement that will be decided. Throughout the process the Secretary of State has the power to set up the committee, to sit on the committee, and finally to overrule the decision of the committee or the arbiter. The Secretary of State seems to have been given too much power in what should be a negotiating committee.
Unlike almost all my hon. Friends, I have some reservations, especially in the post-school sector, about the linking together of conditions of service and salaries. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire disagrees. At present, three different systems of education, including colleges of further education and the central institutions, which themselves range from what are essentially polytechnics to drama, music and nautical colleges, have different conditions of service.
There are grave fears among many people in the post-school system, and probably in all areas, that a process of bringing together will mean a lowering of conditions of service in some, if not all, areas and that there will be a search for common ground, in which some are bound to lose. I should therefore like to see clause 14 deleted. A possible answer is to establish the pay review board, although I accept some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North.
The deletion that I propose would permit a proper discussion of some of the points about the salary negotiating machinery made by my hon. Friends—points that should be heeded. My amendment may not be the perfect answer. It would, however, represent an improvement on clause 14. If what I propose were allowed to exist for two or three years to allow a better negotiating machinery to be established, this might be a better way to proceed.
I recall the submission by the Association of Lecturers in Colleges of Education in Scotland—I was at the time its chairman—to the Houghton committee in September 1974 and our meeting with the committee at the Post House hotel in Edinburgh. The committee did itself quite well on its perambulations around the country. Its members were probably right to stay in good hotels.
The Houghton committee questioned us on our proposal that there should be a permanent standing review body on teachers' pay. The point of the Houghton committee was that teachers' salaries had fallen badly behind those found in comparable jobs. The Houghton report shows that that was so. In the Houghton report the increase was not the annual pay increase, because in April 1975 we negotiated a further pay increase in line with

inflation. That was our pay policy that year. In some cases there was a 30 per cent. increase in salary, because the Houghton committee thought that teachers' salaries had fallen behind by that amount in comparison with similar areas of work.
6.30 am
Many organisations—not just my own—suggested that a permanent pay review body should be established to overcome such problems. It was thought that in that way teachers' pay would not fall behind. There would be an annual review, which would maintain the level of teachers' salaries. At that time we were negotiating for most of the time purely with the Secretary of State. However, teachers' salaries fell behind. In addition, the Secretary of State took decisions that we thought should have been taken by a review body. We thought that a review body's recommendations should provide the standard upon which negotiations were based. We thought that that would be a better means of ensuring that Scottish education was not disrupted.
Houghton's failure to establish a pay review body meant that teachers' salaries fell behind again. Teachers always found themselves in the trap of having no industrial muscle. Their salaries fell behind because they could not get anything more than the bare norm that the Government were prepared to give. If there had been a permanent review body that problem might have been overcome.
The wording of the new clause may have its faults. Nevertheless, Ministers should seriously consider the matter and discuss it with local authorities and the education trade unions. They should withdraw clause 14 so that such discussions can take place. There is no rush. There is no reason why the existing salary and conditions of service committees should not continue for another 12 months. They have continued for seven years since the Houghton report, and one year, or even two years, will not make much difference. There is no great problem. The teachers have negotiated for seven years and I see no reason why they cannot negotiate now, while we try to find a proper solution rather than the hotchpotch of clause 14.

Mr. Bruce Milan: The debate and the points raised by my hon. Friends have raised the question of public sector pay. Hon. Members will be glad to know that I intend simply to comment for a few minutes on the new clause. All Governments face difficulties in terms of public sector pay. Hon. Members should recognise that fact. We can see the problems that the Government have got themselves into with the Civil Service. The Government began by saying that they would not get involved in any form of incomes policy, but they are now applying one severely in the public sector. They are acting unfairly and arbitrarily by refusing to negotiate with the Civil Service.
It is ironic, in that context, and an illustration of the difficulty of dealing with public sector pay, that, as I understand it, some kind of independent inquiry is being talked about, between the Government on the one hand and the Civil Service unions on the other. Whatever form that inquiry takes, whether it be a Royal Commission or something else, it will be looking into the question of how the civil servants should have their pay decided. The Government have apparently abandoned the Pay Research Unit and the various obligations that used to follow from that.
If we set up a standing review body or a Royal Commission, a pay research unit, or whatever, it cannot be done in a vacuum. It has to be done in the context of some terms of reference, and in the context of some overall policy. One of the difficulties about the new clause is that setting up a standing review body does not by itself solve the problem of teachers' pay.
First, it is unrealistic to say that the decision shall be binding on all the parties. Apart from anything else, I do not think that the teachers' trade unions would accept that. That is always one of the difficulties. I may be wrong in my recollection, but it is not my impression that the obligation was accepted at the setting up of the Houghton committee. The unions then were anxious that the Government should accept an obligation that the recommendations would be binding, but they were not anxious to accept that obligation themselves. In practical terms that is not something that can be made to stick.
It may be made to stick on one occasion, but it cannot be made to stick if one is dealing with a permanent review body as distinct from an ad hoc inquiry, as Houghton was. In any case, it has to be done in some kind of context, and with terms of reference. The Civil Service arrangement was arrived at in a particular context. The idea of the Civil Service Pay Research Unit was to find out, in effect, what happened in analagous occupations in private industry and bring the civil servants into line. That is a perfectly understandable way of going about deciding Civil Service pay. The Government have abandoned it in a completely unilateral and arbitrary way. At least there were terms of reference for the Civil Service Pay Research Unit—

Mr. Bill Walker: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is not the first instance of pay research being suspended, together with the findings of the unit?

Mr. Millan: Yes. What I was saying was that there has to be some kind of context in which any review body operates. That inevitably involves the Government taking some kind of view about public service pay. I include teachers' pay in that category of public service pay. In a sense, for the teachers or anyone else to ask for a standing review body on its own does not provide any kind of solution to the problem of teachers' pay or to the pay problems of any category of worker. It has to be done in some context.
It is ironic that we should now be arguing for a standing review body for teachers' pay, in view of what happened to the Clegg commission. That dealt with the question of comparability. It was intended to have the effect—and, as far as it was allowed to, it did have the effect—of ensuring that teachers' pay did not fall behind. The report on the way in which it operated was greeted with tremendous hostility by teachers' associations in Scotland. I say now that I think that they were extremely foolish in their attitude to the commission. I say that now because I said it at the time to the teachers. That demonstrates the difficulty of achieving something that is absolutely right and is set in the proper context.
We must set in a general context the standing review body—another kind of reference body, comparability commission, or whatever we have, for teachers' pay. It is putting the cart before the horse to set up the bodies

without having decided the terms of reference or without an understanding of what those terms of reference are likely to be.
For that reason, I do not recommend my hon. Friends to press the new clause to a Division. Clearly there is division of view among my hon. Friends on the matter. Nevertheless, we have had an interesting and useful debate. The new arrangements in the Bill—in clause 14 and elsewhere—will not solve the problems of teachers' pay. They may provide a slightly better arrangement in a technical and procedural sense, but they will not prevent the Government from interfering in free negotiations on teachers' pay, as the Government have already done, not by the direct method of exercising the veto in the teachers' salaries committee, but by the indirect and equally effective method—from their point of view—of denying local authorities the opportunity of engaging in genuine free negotiations with teachers by denying them money through the rate support grant to pay for the salary decisions that such negotiations might bring about.
The Bill will not solve the problem of teachers' pay; neither will new clause 8, unless the idea of a standing review body is considerably elaborated in a way that I do not think possible in the legislation, and particularly without an understanding of the context and terms of reference in which such a review body would operate. For that reason I hope that my hon. Friend, having ventilated the matter in a useful way, will not press the new clause to a Division.

Mr. Foulkes: I appreciate the spirit in which all the speeches have been made. The debate has been constructive. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown), although he felt that his remarks were not constructive, was not in any way unconstructive.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) that we have not achieved perfection in the new clause. It is difficult to do that. However, we hope that it has ventilated the issue and provided an opportunity for a debate on a matter that the major trade union sees as a way forward, in the longer term, in pay negotiations.
I accept what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and others, that before introducing such a proposal more discussions would be needed with trade unions and local authorities. I accept, too, that the matter should be put into the general economic context, as my right hon. Friend said.
I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). I remember his time as Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science. He gave us the remarkable go-ahead for the Wester Hailes community school and for the Lothian region to take over the borrowing consent of the previous authority.
The purpose of the new clause was to air the issue and provide an opportunity for consideration. Now that it has been considered, I hope that the matter will be looked at in the longer term by the Government—or, as is more likely, by the new Government after the next election. I hope that our debate today will start the ball rolling in that direction.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 9

PRE-SCHOOL EDUCATION

'In the Principal Act Part I, section 1, subsection (2), leave out "not" and from "but" to "classes".'—[Mr. Foulkes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Foulkes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I shall be brief, because many of my hon. Friends have much to say about nursery education. Among other reports in favour of the extension of nursery education I commend "Before 5", produced 10 years ago. Several academic studies have been conducted since then showing the great value of nursery education. It is now accepted that in the first few years of a child's development more progress is made than at any other period.
The progress of a child's cognitive attainment and development processes is related closely to the child's environment Over-anxious parents can cause problems. In ensuring a positive, stimulating environment one must ensure that it does not go too far. It is clear from all the studies that interaction with other children, even at an early stage, is important for a child's development.
Studies show that the advantages gained in the early years can be lost if there is no positive, stimulative environment later. We recognise the importance of primary and secondary education. Studies also show that children with only one parent require particular support early. Children in poor housing find the environment less stimulating and are in great need of pre-school provision, either in a nursery school or a play group.
Other social factors, such as being part of a large family, create disadvantages for young children. That is why, for a number of years, many politicians have advocated nursery schools. I recall that the present Prime Minister, in an earlier incarnation, was one of the advocates of nursery school development. Before she started milk-snatching she was building her reputation on the development of nursery education. The new clause makes nursery provision obligatory for local authorities. It makes nursery education available on demand.
When the Prime Minister did not have the constraints of office she made great play of nursery education and gained mileage from it. In providing opportunities for play, language development, communication, musical development and conceptual understanding, nursery schools play an important part. They are important for emotional and social development, as well as for educational development.
In spite of the great talk by the Prime Minister and others, Britain is lamentably behind other countries in the provision of nursery education. I wish to quote the figures that are most easily available for pupils enrolled in all pre-school education in 1976. About 15 per cent. of all children below the age of compulsory schooling were receiving nursery education. For other EEC countries the figures were: Belgium, with 56 per cent.—which was by far the best provision; France, with 54 per cent.; Germany, with 43 per cent.; Ireland and Italy, with 35 per cent.; Luxembourg, with 33 per cent.; and the Netherlands, with 42 per cent. In no way has Britain come anywhere near to achieving not only the targets set by successive Governments but the level of nursery education in other countries.
In spite of the constraints, and because of their recognition of the importance of nursery education, local authorities in Scotland have made some effort to make adequate provision. That happened under the old local authorities and was taken up by the new authorities following reorganisation. I shall give the rank order of provision in the regional and island authorities. It is interesting to note that top of the list for providing nursery education is an authority that is constantly vilified by Conservative Members for one reason or another, namely, the Lothian region. It provides nursery education for 37 per cent. of all 3 and 4 year olds.
We constantly hear Conservative Members, especially the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), say that the Lothian region is dreadful because of its profligate expenditure. Nursery schooling is one example of the positive education provision being made by that region, for which payment is necessary.

Mr. Allan Stewart: If it is a positive education provision, what about the children who do not receive nursery education? Surely the Lothian region is not taking proper care of them. Perhaps their parents are doing a better job than the parents of the children who receive nursery education.

Mr. Foulkes: The Lothian region would like to provide more nursery education, especially in country areas that have not had that facility in the past. Given the availability of buildings—which are not always immed-iately available, because of the reduction in the capital programme—and given also the availability of staff and the availability of money through the rate support grant, greater provision would be made by the Lothian region as well as by some other regions.

Mr. Stewart: rose—

Mr. Foulkes: This is becoming an interesting debate.

Mr. Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman be more honest and bring forward a new clause to lower the school starting age?

Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friends and I are trying to ensure that we provide automatically not only nursery education but nursery schools, coupled with pre-school provisions such as playgroups, which are recognised and approved by local authorities, and day nurseries that provide care for a longer period through the social work provision. Together they will provide a unified provision for the under-fives.
Subsequent to that report, a report was published by the SED on unified provision for the under-fives. Nursery education is the core provision, which should be made available to those who want it. Some may prefer a different pre-school provision, and I accept that. There is a close correlation between local authorities that provide nursery schools, day nurseries and other pre-school facilities.
Second in the order of provision is Fife, with 36 per cent. Third is Strathclyde, with 23 per cent. Fourth is Central, with 21 per cent. The four top authorities are the four Labour authorities in Scotland. That is an example of Labour concern and Labour provision. Labour authorities are prepared to make the provision—it may cost ratepayers more—where there is a necessity and a demand for it.

Mr. Peter Fraser: The hon. Gentleman appears to agree that there are acceptable alternatives to nursery schools. If so, any figures that he may have about


league table percentages spent on nursery school education are spurious. The only way of regarding pre-school provision is to take into consideration that which is provided in the locality. I have in mind pre-school playgroups, for example. The hon. Gentleman is engaging in a futile exercise. He knows perfectly well that there are some areas where the playgroup movement is extremely well developed and working very successfully, but that will not appear in any figures of percentage expenditures by local authorities with education responsibilities.

Mr. Foulkes: I know the parts of the country in which the pre-school playgroup is the best developed, namely, places such as the Lothian region. There is a high correlation between traditional nursery school provision and day nursery and pre-school playgroup provision. I know that that is so from my own experience.
We are arguing that other regions which are not as enlightened as Lothian, Strathclyde, Fife and Central, should be given the stimulus to improve the provision of nursery education and to make more available. Local authorities such as Dumfries and Galloway are right at the bottom of the table, with only 7 per cent. provision. The Highland region has only 8 per cent. provision. These should be encouraged to make more nursery education provision so that all parents who want to send their children to nursery schools will be able to do so.
It is nursery education that forms the core. I am not critical of pre-school play groups; I believe that they have their role. However, most people agree—certainly the professionals involved—

Mr. John MacKay: Oh!

Mr. Foulkes: —that the provision made for nursery schools in terms of competitive development, structured play, adult relationships and emotional development is of great importance. I do not know why the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) wishes to deride professionals. After all, he was one and his colleagues on his left and right are professionals of a sort. I am surprised that he derides professional expertise.
I have advanced arguments for supporting the new clause to ensure that nursery provision is treated not as an after thought, or a frill, or as something that local authorities may provide, but as an important and essential provision for young children at the most vital stage of their development.

7 am

Mr. Maxton: We now come to yet another important element of the Scottish education system. One of the things that those of us on the Opposition Benches who have been in the Chamber as opposed to elsewhere throughout the long night would say is that we have been debating the real issues concerning Scottish education—colleges of education, the post-school education system, teachers' salaries, corporal punishment and the provision of school reports, including the assessment system. We shall move on later to other issues.
I note that several Conservative Members have just walked out. I always manage to generate a mass walk-out somewhere during the day. That may say something more about the Minister than about me.
The important debates on the Bill have taken place during this long night, and not during Second Reading or

in Committee, when we discussed issues that are essentially irrelevant to the mainstream of Scottish education.
Tonight we have been discussing the major issues. We now turn to another, which is the provision of nursery education. I am pleased to welcome back at long last the Secretary of State, who has responsibility for education in Scotland. If he had been here a little more often during the night he might have learnt something about the Scottish education system of which he is supposed to be in control.
I am sorry that the Conservative Members who walked out, having had a go at my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) on the issue of play schools, are not staying to listen to what other Opposition Members have to say about nursery education and the playschool movement.
For too long nursery education has been considered, probably by all Governments, as a frill that has been added to the education system. Local authorities can provide it if they want to, rather like adult education at the other end. When money is tight, as it has been over the past two years, it is one of the first things to be cut back, as it is not an obligation of local authorities to provide such education. They can look to that area if savings have to be made. I link with that the pre-school playgroup movement. Nursery education should not be a frill for many children.
A commonly accepted fact among educationalists, if there is such an animal, is that by the age of 5 children learn 50 per cent. of the total knowledge that they will accumulate in their whole life. By the age of 5 we learn some of the most important skills that we shall ever have. You are looking slightly sceptical at that statistic, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. O'Neill: Does it come from Reader's Digest?

Mr. Maxton: It does not come from Reader's Digest. It will be found in most educational psychology books. Reader's Digest is good at culling odd little facts out of more weighty and learned tomes, but that sort of fact is to be found in more learned tomes than Reader's Digest.
We learn to walk and talk, and we learn a large percentage of language—which is the most important base of everything that we do in our lives, particularly in the House—before the age of 5. We add the technicalities of our language, in terms of words, only after the age of 5.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: The hon. Member's audience is coming back. He can speed up now.

Mr. Maxton: I am glad that my audience is coming back.
The years up to the age of 5 are very important in the development of children. That fact is often ignored by those who have control of the purse strings in education, although it is not ignored by those concerned with the provision of education.
As anyone involved in education knows, if, up to the age of 5, a child falls behind his peer group, he will find it extremely difficult to catch up, and, in most cases, will fall further and further behind. Most subjects taught in school build fact on fact and skill on skill. Basic skills are required of a child when he first enters school. People not directly involved in education believe that a child goes to school like a blank piece of paper on which the school can draw whatever it wishes. It is not true. Children have to


go to school with certain abilities if they are to cope readily with the situation. Reception class teachers expect a certain vocabulary and certain social skills. They expect certain developmental concepts. They expect a child to have some idea of number, however primitive, such as being able to count on his fingers up to 10.
Most children from our background have such skills, but, because of their environment, many other children do not have the skills required to start in primary school. Children from poorer homes require nursery education. I refer specifically to nursery and not pre-school education. Such children need a structured system, run by professionals, who can make judgments about each child's development and what he needs. They need to be taken from 3 until 5 to learn the skills that they cannot obtain in the home, so that they have a chance to succeed in school.
It is commonly accepted among educationists that if children do not have basic skills when they first go to school they will not succeed in the infant department and, consequently, further up the school. The gap between the child and his peers will widen. As he falls behind, he will find it more and more difficult to keep up. The class teacher has to deal with the majority, so the child will drop even further behind.
There is also the psychological problem of a sense of failure. Children see their peers moving ahead and begin to feel that they will never succeed, so they stop trying, attain even less, and drop yet further behind. Such children end up by leaving school at 16 without any skills, and sometimes even without literacy and numeracy. They find it extremely difficult to obtain employment. Society then has the problem of dealing with a person who does not have skills even for limited jobs, and at present would find it difficult to get a job at all.
Society must therefore deal with that problem at that end. Many people, when they find that a child is semi-literate and semi-numerate, believe that the school system has somehow failed. In my view, however, without proper nursery school provision it can be argued that the school never had a chance because the child did not have the basic skills required to tackle the school system when it entered the school at the age of 5.
Of course we should all like to see more remedial teachers in the primary and secondary schools to try to overcome those problems, but, with the present cuts in education, authorities are finding it extremely difficult to provide any remedial teachers in those schools. The schools therefore cannot cope with children who, at the age of 5, already have deep-seated learning difficulties.
Proper provision of nursery schools in areas where there is need, and where there is an obligation upon the local authorities to ensure that they are provided, would not eradicate the problem but it would go some way towards dealing with it. Unlike the Minister in charge of education—the Secretary of State, of course, has to bear responsibility for him as well as for education in Scotland—who seems to believe that unless we can have perfection we shall have nothing at all, Opposition Members would prefer to see a change that will make things better, even if it will not solve all the problems.
There is a duty upon local authorities—my hon. Friend pointed out how wide are the differences between local authorities in Scotland in terms of this provision—to provide nursery education for all who wish it. In some cases it will be for those who need it, because, as the Warnock provisions make clear, there is also a need for

nursery education for children with special needs. As usual, however, the Government have produced the Warnock clauses without providing the money that is needed to ensure that they can be carried out in the schools and that there is proper nursery provision for children with learning difficulties. All this is required if we are to solve some of the problems of children who do not have the necessary skills when they come into the school at the age of 5.
I am delighted to welcome you, Mr. Speaker, at this bright and early hour of the morning.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I wish that I could share the hon. Gentleman's pleasure.

Mr. Maxton: I dare say that you had a good night's sleep, Mr. Speaker.
There are children who, in a sense, have already failed, even at that age. The famous book, "Born to Fail", spelt out clearly the problems of children from certain environments in being able to succeed when they get to school because they do not have the language skills and the other skills required to succeed in primary school. There are, of course, things that we should be doing in the primary schools as well, but that is clearly not a matter for this debate.
I conclude with a brief word about the pre-school playgroup movement, mainly because if I did not my wife would never forgive me. She was chairperson of such a group for some years and if I did not say what a great thing it was and what a marvellous job she and many others have done in that area I should not be able to go home on Thursday or Friday, or whenever I manage to get there.
The pre-school playgroup has a very important role. It is interesting that Conservative Members, who were here earlier but have now disappeared, mocked my hon. Friend's comment that the difference between the nursery school and the pre-school playgroup was that the former was manned by professionals and the latter was not. Increasingly, however, in my experience, pre-school playgroups wish and seek to employ people who have some professional expertise. The idea that a playgroup is always run by the willing parent is not correct.
Pre-school playgroups increasingly employ people with some experience, albeit on a part-time basis. At one time it was suggested that colleges of education in Scotland might train people who wished to be semi-professionals in the pre-school playgroup movement.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: The hon. Gentleman seems to be canvassing two distinct ideas—the nursery school concept and the pre-school playgroup—among all the other things that he wishes to use to buttress the failing education system. Will he state his priority—nursery schools or preschool playgroups—given the shortage of cash?

Mr. Maxton: I do not know whether I would use the argument about a shortage of cash. I believe that we ought to devote more money to education in general. However, we cannot say that we must choose between the two. For a start, much of the pre-school playgroup movement is financed and run by parents. Therefore, the cost that falls on the State is not all that great. I accept that the State puts in money, although many local authorities have cut back on their grants to the movement.
If the hon. Gentleman insists on my giving a priority, I would say that it should be to nursery schools, because


they provide children from working-class backgrounds, particularly poorer working-class backgrounds, with the sort of structured environment that is required if they are to achieve success in later schooling. The pre-school playgroup does a good job in relation to the social aspects of a child's education, but not a great deal in respect of the learning aspects. The nursery school is needed for children who come from poorer environments, and that would therefore by my priority.
I confess, Mr. Speaker, that I am beginning to ramble. I shall not continue to do so. I give the new clause my full support and I shall be interested to hear what the Government say about it.

Mr. O'Neill: The new clause seeks to restore to the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 the position that prevailed before the English legislation of last year changed the nursery education obligation of local authorities. It would be helpful if local authorities again had such an obligation.
If local authorities have an obligation placed on them, they know where they stand. They can realistically go to the Secretary of State when the rate support grant is being negotiated and include in their claims a clear and explicit request for financial provision for what they consider to be an important part of the education service.
It is not necessary for me to rehearse the arguments already advanced by my colleagues. They relate to education psychology and sociology and the value to young people of socialising through the opportunities available in nursery education.
There is always a division of emphasis about nursery classes provided through social work departments. For example, we must consider the release of the mother for employment. For a single-parent family that is a vital provision giving the single parent an opportunity to earn money to help provide for the family. It also provides in some respects a relief for the mother from the child, because a single-parent mother is tied to the family even more closely than a mother in a two-parent family.
It is appropriate that we should talk about this matter in this context, because many hon. Members are parts of single-parent families for at least three or four days of the week. We know only too well the significance for our domestic situations. I know that you are not married, Mr. Speaker, but you appreciate the problem of those of us who have young families. At the weekends our wives are not always desperate to see us, but they are desperate to have a break from looking after our families because we are about 400 miles from home.
I think that we can speak with some conviction about that aspect of the matter. Certainly our salaries should be sufficient to provide our families with the degree of care that would enable our wives, when acting as single parents for part of the week, to have a degree of independence. But such financial independence is not open to many less fortunate members of the community. Therefore, nursery classes are an important side of the provision.
Nursery schools are an educational matter. Local authorities should have a duty to make much more long-term provision. We should like to return to the position before the law was amended when local authorities could look ahead and plan effectively in the knowledge that, because there was a duty imposed upon them, there would be the financial means to will that end.
We recognise that the provision for the under-fives is important. At a time of increasing social stress and strain, it is important that mothers be assisted. It can be done in many ways through the availability of funds, which will have to come if there is that degree of obligation on local authorities which the new clause would impose.
For those reasons we are sympathetic to the new clause. I appreciate that without any financial backing such a measure would be difficult to get off the ground. I expect that my hon. Friends will seek leave to withdraw the new clause. However, we are grateful to them for raising this important educational issue and putting on record that the Opposition still believe that it ought to be an obligation on local authorities to make formal provision for the under-fives. We urge the Government to think again about this matter and as quickly as possible to restore what we had regarded as an improving state of affairs.
If the Secretary of State cannot do it now, after the next election it will one of the matters at which a future Labour Government will look closely. It is not for me now to give any order of priority to this matter, but we regard it as important. We would hope to restore what we felt in the late 1970s was becoming an increasingly better situation in which the scope for improvement provided grounds for hope.
In that light, therefore, we hope that the Minister will be forthcoming and encouraging to those of us who have introduced this matter in a constructive fashion.

Mr. Ernie Ross: All of my three children had the experience of receiving some form of nursery school training prior to attending school. I support everything that has been said by my hon. Friends in this short debate on a necessary element of the training of young children prior to attendance at school.
The benefits that children receive from attending nursery schools and pre-school playgroups are often referred to by teachers when they are talking about the advantage that that brings to schoolchildren who have had some form of training and association with other children in a school atmosphere. I am glad that my children had that experience.
For a number of years my wife has been a trained playgroup supervisor. She took a training course through the Scottish Pre-School Playgroups Association to ensure that when she took over a playgroup the children were not being looked after just by well-meaning mothers. The children were under her direction and receiving some form of training that would assist them when they went to school.
I agree that our first priority for spending on nursery education must be on those nursery schools controlled by the regional authorities. Clearly, we want an extension of that. My hon. Friends have alluded to the desertion of the provision of nursery education, and that will seriously affect working mothers. Some have had to give up their jobs in Dundee because nursery schools have closed and other schools have not been provided by the Tayside region. There is a tragic impact on a family when the mother has to give up working. In Dundee, most working-class families require both the wife and the husband to make some contribution to the family income. It is necessary for the mother to go to work knowing that her children will be looked after in a playgroup or nursery school group, but preferably in a nursery school so that the children can benefit.
I associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes). They recognise that the foundation of a child's development in education is laid in the pre-school years. Mastering the skills of language is crucial to a young child. Nursery education can help to develop these skills, as can playgroups and other organisations for the under-fives. We still come back to the need to extend the available nursery school provision to all children under 5. Any Government should try to ensure the well-being of their future citizens. They must give high priority in their education programme to the provision of nursery schools.
Unfortunately, in my area the regional council is responsible for education and it does not have that priority in its education policy. Tayside is usually at the bottom of everything, whether it is the provision of teachers or of school books. In the league table of nursery education it comes fifth, so one has to concede that in that respect it is not as bad as others.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire referred to the Scottish Education Department's book "Before Five". On the last page it says:
In Dundee in 1920 the first nursery school was opened in a wing of the former poor house.
Since the inception of Tayside region, the provision of nursery education for the people of Dundee has been going back to the days of the poorhouse. Tayside has been markedly lax in its approach to the provision of necessary nursery education.
7.30 am
Two purpose-built nursery schools lay empty for many years. Now the regional council intends to open one, but in opening the one in Menzieshill it plans to close two others—Ancrum Road and Mitchell Street. It seems intent on closing both, despite the pressure of the parents concerned, suggesting that the closures can be offset by opening Menzieshill. That school, built on the Menzieshill housing estate, was intended for the children in that area. The other two schools were supposed to take account of the needs of their areas.
I have expressed to the Minister a number of times the parents' opposition to the plans. Unfortunately, the response of the Minister and the region gives no one in Dundee any hope that the region will change its policy.
Other provisions in the Bill governing the way in which parents will be able to appeal to the Secretary of State against an authority's decision to close nursery schools cause even more concern. Under the Bill the Secretary of State's approval is no longer needed and the regions are obliged only to hold consultations with parents before reaching a decision. All those of us who have had experience of Tayside region know exactly what consultation means. The region uses the word exactly as it is used in industrial relations; "consultation" means all talk and no action. That is what parents of children attending Ancrum Road and Mitchell Street have found. There may be consultation, but there will be no action to try to reflect the views of parents.
The Opposition Front Bench have suggested that we should not push the clause to a vote. I believe that we should listen to the Minister carefully before we decide whether to force a Division.
In case hon. Members think that I am exaggerating the way in which the Tayside Tories treat the people of

Dundee, I tell them what happened to the parents of children at Law nursery school, one of the best nursery schools in Dundee. Two of my children attended it, and at the age of 3½ and 4 they were speaking French. It was a very progressive school and the teachers took a great interest in the children. They went out of their way to encourage the children even at that early age to see how far they could progress in learning another language. The experiment was very successful. I should like the benefits of that type of nursery school to be provided for many more children in Dundee.
There are very needy children in Dundee for whom the region refuses to provide day nursery places. There is a great deal of pressure within Dundee district to get those needy children into nursery school, so the region has decided to put two sets of parents head-on against one another and see who comes out on top. The whole House should deprecate that. The region decided to end nursery school provision for a number of children on the basis that it intended to provide 20 places for needy children. All the parents who have approached me on the issue have made it clear that they want those children to be in nursery schools or day nurseries, but they also want their own children to be allowed to continue in Law nursery school. It is disgraceful that the region should be so callous as to try to offer the parents of the needy children the places of other children who are receiving the benefits of nursery school education.

Mr. Fairgrieve: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Speaker, at this early hour. Whether what you hear is exciting, scintillating or enlightening is another matter. I leave it to your good judgment.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) was, I think, muddled after withdrawing new clause 8 only to be back on his feet straightaway to propose new clause 9. Another interesting contribution came from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), who said that the debate had been useful because hon. Members had heard things during the night that never emerged in Committee. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Opposition made such an awful mess of the Committee stage that this issue was not properly debated. Some appalling whipping in Committee by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) also accounts for the fact that hon. Members have had to sit through the night.
The object of the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill) is to restore the position prior to the enactment of the Education Act (Scotland) 1980. Although education authorities in Scotland have a duty to provide nursery education until the coming into operation of section 25 of the 1980 Act, successive Governments, including Labour Governments, have, in practice, placed restrictions on the extent to which they could fulfil that duty. Such restrictions are fully understandable. At times when public expenditure has to be constrained, the compulsory sector of school education must take priority. A Conservative Government removed the restrictions and a considerable expansion of the number of places in nursery classes and nursery schools resulted.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) supported pre-school playgroups. The hon. Gentleman conducted the House on a round tour of Dundee and told how his own children had benefited from the education they received in Tayside. I must, however,


invite the House to reject the new clause, which would compel education authorities to provide education in nursery classes and nursery schools regardless of whether such provision, in their view, was justified. The new clause in present circumstances would be an unreasonable burden to place on authorities and would be an unjustified restriction on the discretion they enjoy now to arrange pre-school provision in the way they consider most appropriate to the needs of their areas.
Although 32,000 children were attending nursery schools and classes in Scotland in September 1979, the latest date for which we have figures, the Government do not believe that this is the only form in which educational provision can be made for children of pre-school age. Voluntary time playgroups run by parents offer a valuable pre-school experience for young children. There are about 42,000 children attending these groups. I was grateful for the information given by my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) showing the value of the groups.
While the new clause would not prevent the continuation of pre-school playgroups, it would compel education authorities to provide new services to replace provision provided for a great number of children on the initiative, enterprise and self-help of parents.
I ask my hon. Friends to reject the new clause, hoping that Opposition Members will have the guts to vote for their proposal for once.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 10

PARENT-TEACHER ORGANISATIONS

It shall be the duty of every education authority to ensure that each primary school and each secondary school within its control shall have a parent-teacher organisation.".—[Mr. Maxton.]
Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Maxton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Although I attach some importance to the new clause, it is not the most important issue before us. I hope that we shall not have to spend as much time on it as we have spent on some of the other measures. The clause is very much in line with what the Government claim to be the Bill's underlying philosophy, namely, that parents should have a choice in education. That implies that parents should have a say in education. In Committee my hon. Friends and I stressed that we were more concerned about parental involvement in education than about the spurious element of parental choice.
The Government are offering a choice that is open only to a few parents. I refer to the better-off parents and not to the majority of those whom Labour Members represent. Those who are less well-off will not have a genuine choice. I hope that the Government will agree that parents should be involved and play an active part in their children's schools. It would be perfectly legitimate for the Government to support that idea. Parents should be part and parcel of the school system and of their children's education.
The clause seeks to lay an obligation on every education authority to ensure that every school has a parent-teacher association. The Minister may say that some parents might not be interested in forming a parent-teacher association.

In Scotland local authorities are obliged to have certain statutory bodies. However, if, for example, parents do not want to be represented on a school council, that is a matter for them. It remains the local authority's obligation to ensure that there are school councils. The same applies to community councils. The local authority is under an obligation to ensure that there are community councils, but if no one comes forward to form such a council there will not be one.
A duty should be imposed on local authorities to ensure that, where possible, parent-teachers associations are set up. I checked carefully with the Department and found that at present schools are not obliged to have parent-teacher associations or other organisations. I am told that less than 50 per cent. of schools have such organisations. Therefore, even if the parents want a say they will not have one in 50 per cent. of schools. I know from personal experience that headmasters and teachers sometimes—perhaps often—say that they want nothing to do with such associations. If they say that, parents cannot get access to the schools. They could form a parents' association, but that would not give them the access to teachers and to head teachers that a parent-teacher association gives them. Therefore, they cannot participate in school life as parents should do.
I hope that the Minister will accept the basic concept of the clause. He may have reservations about the wording. He may wish to qualify it a little. I hope, however, that he will accept the basic concept if he believes in parental choice and involvement in children's education. This is one small way in which he can ensure that parental involvement is a little wider and involves more parents than the small number who would be involved in what he terms parental choice under the Bill.

Mr. O'Neill: We on the Opposition Front Bench welcome the clause. We feel that there is a considerable amount of evidence in support of it. Research work carried out by Glasgow university concerning parent-teacher associations and school councils suggested that PTAs have a great deal to contribute. We feel that they should be encouraged, because there are still many schools that do not have either PTAs or parents' associations. The survey by the Scottish Parent-Teacher Council in 1978 suggested that out of 1,364 Scottish schools only about 481 had either PTAs or parents' associations.
It is true to say that throughout the 1970s there has been something of an explosion among parent-teacher associations. We welcome this development. We believe that when the Minister returns to the theme of parental involvement with schools it would be helpful to have in this legislation a clause that would impose an obligation on local authorities actively to promote such associations. We know that various bodies, such as the Pack committee, have stressed the need for good home-school relations and better discipline. It is said that if there were a good relationship between home and school there would be a better climate in school, from which youngsters could benefit.
I recognise that the Glasgow research to which I have referred makes the point that it is not in favour of legislative compulsion. We are not suggesting that. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) made the point clearly that we are not seeking to compel or dragoon anyone into PTAs. Believing that they


are a good thing, however, we feel that it is incumbent upon the Government to encourage local authorities to act to promote them as best they can. We have no hesitation in supporting the clause and asking the Minister to look favourably upon it. I suspect that we shall not seek to vote upon it, because we do not think that it is a matter of great controversy.
This is a matter on which we would be interested to hear the Minister's views. We would be interested to know whether he has any plans to improve this side of parental involvement, because it seems that he has a very narrow focus in terms of his interpretation of parental involvement. We believe that there are occasions when parental involvement should be structured to play an important part in the life of the school. If the clause is imperfect we ask the Minister to look at it again and to give some support to whatever steps may be taken in another place to improve this non-controversial but highly desirable developmemt in Scottish education.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I listened carefully to what was said by the hon. Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill). The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire said that there was no question of compulsion, but by placing a duty upon an authority the clause is compelling it to ensure that a parent-teacher organisation is set up in each of its primary and secondary schools. The clause provides:
It shall be the duty of every education authority to ensure that each primary school and each secondary school within its control shall have a parent-teacher organisation.

Mr. O'Neill: We said that we were not seeking to compel parents to be members of an association. We were seeking to impose upon local authorities the obligation to take seriously the possibility of setting up associations if there is a demand for them. If there is no demand for them they cannot be set up. We want local authorities to have a responsibility so to do.

Mr. Fletcher: I agree that we cannot compel parents, any more than we can compel teachers, to be members of a parent-teacher association. If one removes the compulsion, one still places upon local authorities a duty to set up PTAs in all their schools.
I note from the Glasgow university report, which was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, that in Lothian region schools councils are explicitly responsible for the encouragement of PTAs and that that has produced a high rate of PTA involvement. Clearly there is nothing to prevent schools and school councils from being involved in that way, but we believe that it is best left to local initiative. There is no need for compulsion of any kind or for placing a duty on local authorities in that way. It is best left to local initiative, in the light of local needs. For that reason, we prefer the situation to remain as it is. I cannot recommend the new clause to my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Maxton: I shall briefly comment on the Minister's incredible reply. In the Bill the Government oblige local authorities to ensure that parents have a choice of school. Local initiative is being taken away from the elected local authorities. In the new clause I am seeking, in a small way, to place an obligation on local authorities to ensure that parents are involved on a much wider basis than the Government are suggesting, and the Minister says that it should be left to local initiative.
I should have been happier if the Minister had said that the new clause's wording was incorrect. I accept that it may contain too strong an element of compulsion and that it could have been worded more clearly. However, the Minister should take seriously the issue of parents' involvement in their children's education. Too often local initiative means that headmasters say "No", and that is it—there is no parent-teacher association. That is not good enough. It is not enough to say that teachers cannot be compelled. It can be put into teachers' contracts by negotiation that they should play a part in parent-teacher associations. As I said, it takes place in other countries.
However, I accept that the drafting of the clause is not entirely correct. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 11

EDUCATIONAL MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCES

'All young persons who are in a course of full-time education shall be entitled to an educational maintenance allowance not less than the amount which they would receive in supplementary benefit if they were not in employment or in full-time education; and it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to provide such allowances.'.—[Mr. Canavan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Canavan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of the clause is to get rid of a serious disincentive whereby, as a result of Government policy, young people are almost deliberately discouraged from staying on at school or from going into full-time education after they have left school and possibly found it difficult, if not impossible, to get work because of the high unemployment that has been created, again by Government policy.
Recently, the situation has worsened as a result of changes in the social security legislation and regulations. In many cases the Government make young school leavers wait for several weeks—sometimes, months—before they can qualify for supplementary benefit if they do not have a job.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) was reported in a Scottish newspaper at the weekend as highlighting one of the anomalies that arose after he received complaints from some senior pupils in secondary schools in his constituency. The complaint centred on whether pupils who sat the Scottish certificate of education examination before leaving school qualified for supplementary benefit. In the past it has been assumed that such youngsters had left school and were available for employment. If they were not able to obtain work they could claim supplementary benefit.
The new ruling by the DHSS means that pupils must have left school by 27 April to claim benefit. That is before SCE examinations begin. If they have not left by then they must wait until September before qualifying for supplementary benefit. That is a disincentive to sit examinations.
The Minister is responsible not only for education but for industry. As such he is responsible for much of the unemployment in Scotland, because of the failure of the Government's industrial policy. Many young people are leaving school and being thrown on to the scrap-heap. The least that we can do for such young people, until we can


offer them meaningful jobs, is to ensure the removal of the disincentive that discourages them from continuing or re-entering full-time education.
We should encourage young people either to stay on at school or to move to further education. The new clause imposes a statutory safeguard in that respect. It would ensure that young people are by statute entitled to an educational maintenance allowance. The amount would be not less than the person would otherwise receive in supplementary benefit if he were not in full-time employment or education.
A small but important group of people were studied by the Warnock committee—children and young people with special educational needs. Paragraph 10.109 states:
The Supplementary Benefits Commission has discretionary powers to pay benefit in particular cases where it considers that there are exceptional circumstances. We understand that it takes the view that benefit can be paid to a young person aged 16–19, even though he may be continuing at school or in further education, if he is physically or mentally handicapped and his prospects are so poor that, were he to leave school or college, he would be unlikely to be able to enter employment within a reasonable period of time.
The Warnock committee was concerned to learn that in 1976 only about 700 handicapped people received supplementary benefit on those grounds. It also showed evidence of considerable variations between different areas in the way in which the discretionary powers of the Supplementary Benefits Commission were exercised.
8 am
I remember asking the Minister a question in Committee. I am still awaiting a reply. How many handicapped youngsters in Scotland are in receipt of supplementary benefit but also receive full-time education or training? How do the figures for Scotland compare with those for other parts of Britain, especially in view of the Warnock committee's reference to widespread variations? I hope that the Minister will reply to the important question of educational maintenance allowances for all youngsters, but especially for handicapped youngsters, who surely deserve better treatment by the Government.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I shall have to reply in writing to the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) about the number of handicapped youngsters in Scotland in receipt of allowances. I happily undertake to do that.
The new clause would transfer from education authorities to the Secretary of State the responsibility for making payments to students over school leaving age who continue at school or who attend non-advanced courses of further education. The hon. Gentleman will know that provision already exists for the assistance of youngsters over school leaving age who continue to undertake full-time studies in Scotland. The payments, which are at the discretion of education authorities and are not, as the new clause would provide, the direct responsibility of the Secretary of State, are subject to parental means tests. The rates of payment are prescribed by regulations made under section 49(3) of the 1980 Act.
All education authorities offer assistance under the regulations, and they are especially sympathetic to those undertaking vocational courses. I am not aware of any urgent reason for making changes in that area. As the hon. Gentleman may know, education authorities may provide

assistance to pupils of up to £435 per session. Students attending full-time courses at further education colleges may also be assisted by education authorities. Payments depend on the age of the student and on parental income. Maximum weekly rates are £26·25 for students who live away from home, and for other students £10·85 for those aged 16 to 17, or £15·95 for those aged 18 or over. All students aged 18 or over also receive a personal allowance of £8·55 per week.
Those provisions appear to work satisfactorily in Scotland. They are administered by the local authorities. We have no reason to believe that any changes are necessary in the provision now available.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 12

OVERSEAS STUDENTS' FEES

'The fees payable by overseas students doing a course of further or higher education in Scotland shall not be more than the fees payable by students from Scotland.'.—[Mr. Canavan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Canavan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is an important issue, which concerns not only overseas students but Scottish students and students from other parts of the United Kingdom. The viability of many courses in colleges and universities in Scotland is being affected by the increased discriminatory fees that are being charged to overseas students.
If the Minister is unable to accept the new clause I hope that he will at least conduct a survey throughout all the colleges in Scotland for which he has responsibility, either directly or indirectly, and use his influence with the Department of Education and Science to ascertain exactly what is happening as a result of these massive increases in fees for overseas students.

Mr. Barry Henderson: rose—

Mr. Canavan: No. I am not giving way.
Hon. Members receive many communications from the National Union of Students, the Association of University Teachers and other organisations, especially about science and technology courses. There is a real threat to their existence. If they ceased to exist, home students as well as overseas students would suffer a severe disadvantage.
In Scotland we have always prided ourselves on the fact that our higher education system is not merely a national system, a regional system or a parochial local system, but an international system. I know that the Minister is not much of an internationalist, or much of an educationist, but I ask him to listen to the views of those in the colleges and universities who are concerned about these issues. Why should he follow the poor examples of the Department of Education and Science in everything that it does?

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I cannot accept the new clause, but I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that we are studying carefully the impact of full-cost fees on the numbers of overseas students coming here, which so far, in Scotland, appears to have been quite small. We are also studying how the money that we can manage to make available for overseas students can be applied in the most effective way. Indiscriminate subsidies of the sort that the new clause would produce are no answer to the problem.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 13

STUDENT AWARDS

'The parental contribution in the Scottish Education Department's Students' Awards Scheme shall henceforth be abolished and the amount of allowance shall be raised annually by a rate which shall not be less than the rate of inflation calculated on the basis of the retail price index'.—[Mr. Canavan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Canavan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The parental means test for the student award scheme and the resultant parental contribution have been with us for a long time. There have been numerous complaints about it. A student—a young person of either sex—may get married at the age of 16 years, and yet we still have a system whereby for the purposes of the student award that student is considered to be dependent upon his or her parents. Some parents do not pay the parental contribution to the student.
It is about time that we moved to a scheme whereby all young people, irrespective of their parents' ability or willingness to pay a parental contribution, were assured of an adequate student award for the payment of tuition fees and maintenance allowance so that they might continue their studies into higher education. The anomaly has been with us for far too long. I accept that it may be expensive to get rid of it at once, but the Minister could give us a helpful reply on a phasing-out process. Perhaps he will tell us the current cost of getting rid of the parental contribution.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I truly understand the point that has been made by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). The whole question of the way in which the parental responsibility is dealt with is unsatisfactory. Short of recasting the whole student grant system, which is not practicable—as the hon. Member knows, we have considered the matter since the last election—nothing can be done at this time, simply because the funds are not available to carry on the Exchequer the parental allowance for student grants.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 1

DUTY OF EDUCATION AUTHORITY TO COMPLY WITH PARENTS' REQUESTS AS TO SCHOOLS.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, leave out lines 3 to 11.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 2, in page 2, line 11, at end insert—
'3(a) if the number of pupils in any register class or tutor group exceeds 28 in a secondary school and 33 in primary school.'.
Government amendment No. 3,
No. 4, in page 3, leave out lines 3 to 5.
Government amendments Nos. 7, 98, 100 and 112.

Mr. Fletcher: The effect of these related amendments is to delete from clause 1 the power given to education authorities by new section 28B(1)(c) to fix the maximum

number of pupils to be educated at a school or at a stage of education in a school. They also delete the power given to education authorities by new section 28(3)(a) to refuse a placing request where the school or stage of education in which the child would be placed has reached such a maximum number.

Mr. Millan: That is by no means an adequate explanation of what the Government are doing. The amendment, which was put down at a late stage, considerably changes the impact of the clause. COSLA has rightly protested strongly at what the Government have done. We must have a longer explanation.
The Government know that we are not at all happy with clause 1 because we do not believe that parental choice should have been dealt with in this legislative way. Instead, it should have been dealt with by encouragement and persuasion of the local authorities, whose record in allowing parental choice is not as bad as the Government have sometimes painted it.
The clause, which deals with parental choice, on the one hand is a statement of the rights of the parent to choose a school for his child, but, on the other hand, is a statement of the circumstances in which the local authority may legitimately refuse that placing. If one is to provide a statutory right for the parent to choose a school for his child, one has to have regard to the practical consequences, allowing that right to be exercised only in circumstances where it is possible for the local authority reasonably to meet the requests of the parent.
A number of circumstances are outlined in the clause in which it will be permissible for the local authority to say that the placing of the request shall not be granted. One of those reasons is that to grant the request would mean placing an undue burden on the school concerned when it already has a sufficient number of pupils in terms of its capacity to deal with those pupils, that is to say, in terms of accommodation and staffing. By the removal of the provision that makes that workable, which, that the local authority must be able to fix the maximum number of pupils who can be admitted to that school, the whole clause is completely changed. If the amendment goes through, it is difficult to see how, in many circumstances in which it would be reasonable to refuse to place a request, the local authority would be able to do so in practical terms.
8.15 am
It is no exaggeration to say that the omission of the provision, which was discussed in detail between the Government and COSLA at an earlier stage of the Bill, may place an impossible burden on local authorities. That view is shared by COSLA and the teacher associations. Quite apart from the merits of the matter, the amendment is all the more deplorable because it was introduced without consultation. It is typical of the Government's approach that major proposals have been introduced without consultation or any attempt to meet the legitimate fears of local education authorities.
I repeat that, by and large, local authorities have a good reputation in these matters, although I do not say that all local authorities deal satisfactorily with placing requests. They could often behave more liberally. There is no difference between the two sides of the House that. However, the problem cannot be solved by detailed legislation, although if we are to have legislation it must


be workable and should not impose an impossible burden on local authorities, which is precisely what the Government are doing by removing the provision.
We oppose the amendment. The matter will be taken up in another place, as we are having to deal with it here at an unreasonable hour. However, we are entitled even at this time to a more detailed explanation of why the Minister is introducing the amendment at a late stage and without consultation.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Consultation on the Bill has been wide and varied, not least with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Consultation on this part of the Bill has been particularly intensive. Although the amendment came late, it came at the end of consultations on how best to satisfy the requirements.
The amendment has been misunderstood. Press reports following the tabling of the amendments made it plain that the provisions were seen in some quarters as enabling authorities to restrict the intake to popular schools, presumably below their physical capacity and the level for which they could be staffed, to force parents to send their children to schools that they did not like and in which they had no confidence. It has been reported in the press that the maximum rolls provisions were seen by education authorities as an important safeguard against the worst effects of the parents' charter contained in the Bill. They went on to suggest that COSLA argued that without the safeguard, there would be an exodus from unpopular to popular schools.
Had we had doubts—which we have not—about the need to make the amendments, the comments from the convention, which were widely reported in the press shortly after the amendments were tabled, made it clear that the provisions relating to maximum rolls as they stood in the Bill were seen as substantially reducing the rights that the Bill seeks to give to parents. I am clear that we should delete provisions open to that misinterpretation of our intentions.

Mr. Millan: The Minister's explanation is inadequate. It does not deal with how the clause can work with the provision deleted. I repeat that COSLA and the teacher associations believe that with the provision deleted the Bill cannot be fairly operated by local authorities. There will be major difficulties in operating the clause. It is deplorable that the change should be made now.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I wish to comment briefly on the amendment, for the simple reason that, although I believe in the maximum freedom of choice for parents and children within the State school system, there must be some order in the way in which the scheme is operated. Knowing that the Minister wishes to make progress, I put this simple point to him.
If he removes subsection (3)(a), how will it be possible for local authorities to operate? The problem is that some local authorities—I refer here specifically to Grampian regional education committee—are still behaving in a completely arbitrary manner towards parents. When we have before us major legislation dealing with the so-called parents' charter and the rights of parents in these matters, it is nonsense to find that local authorities, particularly Grampian region, within the last couple of weeks have refused to meet a deputation from Linksfield schools council about changes in zoning.
As local authorities seem to be operating on the basis that there is no change in the legislation and they can do as they will, what effect does taking out subsection (3)(a) have? Does it mean that parents have an absolute right to decide what school their child should attend and the local authority is therefore bound to accept that view?

Mr. Fletcher: Briefly, what the hon. Gentleman has said is roughly correct. Certainly a catchment zone will not in itself be a reason for disallowing admission to a school, provided that there is accommodation for the child at the school.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 3, in page 2, leave out lines 33 to 37.—[Mr. Alexander Fletcher.]

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 27, leave out from 'such' to 'as' in line 28 and insert
'matters as may be prescribed by regulations; (iii) such other matters'.
This amendment clarifies a point of drafting. There is a possibility that new section 28B could be interpreted as giving an education authorty the alternatives of publishing information about matters prescribed in regulations or, if it thinks necessary or expedient, about matters that it considers appropriate. The amendment seeks to clarify that.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 4, line 30, leave out 'effect of section 28A' and insert
'general effect of section 28A(1) and (2)'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it may be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 8, in page 4, line 21, at end insert—
'(f) on a request to that effect made to them at any time by a parent of a child supply the parent with information about the provision for Gaelic education in the schools under their management and shall take reasonable steps to provide Gaelic education for the child in accordance with the wishes of the parent.'.
No. 9, in page 4, line 28, at end add
'subject to subsection 3A below.'.
No. 10, in page 4, line 42, at end insert—
'3A. The prescribed information above will not include the results of the performance of any of the school's pupils in any public examination.'.

Mr. Fletcher: The purpose of the amendment is simply to clarify the drafting of new section 28B. The present wording could be interpreted as requiring an authority that proposes to place a child in a school to inform the parents of the effect of the whole of new section 28A in relation to placing requests. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that that would be excessive. It was never our intention that such detail would be appropriate at the first stage of informing the parent of the school proposed.

Mr. Canavan: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak briefly to amendment No. 8 in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends. I do not wish to repeat all the arguments in favour of Gaelic education that were used in Committee. Unfortunately, our amendment was defeated in Committee because all the Tory hon. Members voted against it. That amendment was based largely on Gaelic-speaking areas.
In drafting the amendment I have attempted to move away from the area definition basis to what the Government claim is the very heart of the Bill, namely,


parental choice. There is some logic for doing this, in that I know that of the 90,000 people in Scotland who speak Gaelic, more than 43 per cent. live outwith the traditionally Gaelic counties of the North.
It might make better sense to insert an amendment such as No. 8, which gives the right to parents. We always hear the Government making polite noises about the rights of parents and parental choice. If parents have rights of choice in respect of schools, why on earth should they not have the right to request that their children should receive Gaelic education?
The amendment therefore proposes that an onus be put on the education authority to
take reasonable steps to provide Gaelic education for the child in accordance with the wishes of the parent.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Amendment No. 8 is drafted in terms that are more modest than I would have wished. However, it would be an advance on the present position. It would give Conservative Members and the Social Democrat who opposed my Ten-Minute Bill, as well as the amendment in Committee, a chance to redeem themselves.
The amendment does not demand a great deal of the Government, but it would allow them to redeem themselves in the eyes of the Gaelic-speaking people. The Government's recent attitude has created much anger in Scotland, about which we shall hear more. I therefore hope that they will accede to this minimal request.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The amendment would do nothing for Gaelic-speaking people in Gaelic-speaking areas of Scotland. It would be a most unreasonable request in places such as North Berwick or Shetland. It would require a local authority to accede to a request for one child to receive Gaelic education in a school, even if that child were the only pupil wishing to have that instruction.
Such a provision could not be applied to a specific subject, and the request is quite unreasonable. The amendment could be deemed to be inadequate unless it provided for Gaelic teaching in any part of Scotland, regardless of the fact that probably no one else within miles spoke the language. Therefore, we cannot accept amendment No. 8.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 7, in page 3, leave out from beginning of line 43 to end of line 5 on page 4.—[Mr. Alexander Fletcher.]

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 9, line 1 after 'Act', insert
'and Schedule A1 to this Act'.
I invite hon. Members to accept this drafting amendment, which simply picks up a missing reference.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 10, line 4 after 'against', insert
'by the parent of the pupil or, where the pupil is a young person, the pupil'.
This amendment clarifies the drafting of new section 28H (6) relating to sheriff exclusion cases.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS WITH CERTAIN SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 14, line 43 after 'examination'. insert
'and a report by any teacher in their employment who is or has been concerned in his education,'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 27 and 28.

Mr. Fletcher: The amendment specifies that an education authority, when carrying out an assessment of a child under new section 61 of the 1980 Act, is required to ensure that a report is prepared by a teacher in its employment who at any time has been concerned with the child's education.
The matter was raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill), and we are happy to comply with his request.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 27, in page 16, line 39 leave out
'including the medical and psychological examinations'.
No. 28, in page 17, line 8 after 'school', insert
'other than one under their management'.
No. 29, in page 18, line 11, at end insert—
'(d) subject to subsection (4) below, their decision refusing his placing request in respect of the child.'.
No. 30, in page 18, line 31, at end insert—
'(c) subject to subsection (4) below, their decision refusing a placing request in respect of the young person.'.
No. 31, in page 18, line 32, after 'authority', insert
'as to nomination of a school to be attended by a recorded child or recorded young person'.
No. 32, in page 18, line 35, leave out from 'request' to end of line 38.

No. 33, in page 18, line 40, leave out '(2)(b)' and insert '(d) or (2)(b) or (c)'.

No. 34, in page 18, line 42, after 'reference', insert 'in respect of him'.

No. 35, in page 20, line 10, after '(1)', insert 'or (2)'.

No. 36, in page 20, line 11, leave out 'nominating' and insert 'as to nomination'.

No. 37, in page 20, line 12, after 'Act', insert 'of'.

No. 38, in page 20, line 14, after 'relates', insert
'or refusing a placing request in respect of him'.

No. 39, in page 20, line 26, at end insert—
'In this subsection, the reference to a placing request includes a reference to a placing request the making of which has, by virtue of section 63(3) of this Act, enabled the reference to the appeal committee to be made; and the reference to the specified school includes a reference to the school specified in such a placing request.'.

No. 40, in page 20 leave out line 31 and insert
'nomination of a school to be attended by him or refusing a placing request in respect of him; and'.

No. 41, in page 20, line 38, at end insert
'In this subsection, the reference to the specified school includes a reference to the school specified in the placing request the making of which has, by virtue of section 63(3) of this Act, enabled the reference to the appeal committee to be made.'.

No. 42, in page 22, line 6, after 'the', insert 'nomination of a'.

No. 43, in page 22, line 7, after 'person', insert
'or refusing the placing request to which the reference relates'.

No 44, in page 22, line 11, after '63' , insert '(1) or (2)'.

No. 45, in page 22, line 13, after 'the', insert


'nomination of a'.

No. 46, in page 22, line 14, after 'person', insert
'or refusing the placing request to which the reference relates'.

No. 47, in page 22, line 16, leave out 'the' and insert 'any'.

No. 48, in page 22, line 17, at end insert
'In this subsection, the reference to the specified school includes a reference to the school specified in the placing request the making of which has, by virtue of section 63(3) of this Act, enabled the reference to the appeal committee to be made'.

No. 49, in page 22, line 20, leave out '(2)(b)' and insert '(d) or (2)(b) or (c)'.

No. 50, in page 22, line 32, after 'section', insert 
'against the decision of an appeal committee confirming the decision of an education authority as to the nomination of a school to be attended by the child or young person'.

No. 51, in page 23, line 17, leave out 'the' and insert 'any'.

No. 52, in page 23, line 17, leave out 'his Record' and insert
'the Record of the child or young person'.

No. 53, in page 23, line 18, at end insert
'In this subsection, the reference to the placing request includes a reference to the placing request the making of which enabled, by virtue of section 63(3) of this Act, the reference to the appeal committee whose decision thereon has been appealed to the sheriff, to be made; and the reference to the specified school includes a reference to the school specified in such a placing request'.

No. 54, in page 23, line 22, after 'the', insert 'nomination of a'.

No. 55, in page 23, after 'him', insert
'or refusing the placing request made in respect of him'.

No. 56, in page 23, line 28, at end insert
'In this subsection the references to the placing request and the specified school shall be construed in the same way as in subsection (6) above'.—[Mr. Alexander Fletcher.]

Mr. Canavan: I beg to move amendment No. 58, in page 25, line 39, at end add:
'(8) If the recommendation under subsection 5(a) above is that the child or young person would benefit therefrom, then the education authority shall be under a duty to provide suitable education for the child or young person'.
What is the point of going through the process of recording a child or young person unless we place on the local education authority a duty to provide suitable education for that child or young person? I am including children of pre-school age and young people beyond the statutory school-leaving age. Would it not be reasonable to say that if a child or young person has been recorded as having special educational needs, adequate educational provision should be made for him or her?

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: There is no need for the proposed provision, because education authorities have a general duty under section 1(1) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 to make adequate provision for school education and further education for their area. If they themselves report that a particular handicapped child would in their opinion benefit from continuing education, a duty to provide that education, if it is asked for, arises clearly from their general duty. They could not possibly fail to provide it and still say that they were making adequate provision.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Canavan: I beg to move amendment No. 59, in page 27, line 14, at end insert—
'65G. The Secretary of State shall provide additional financial assistance to enable local education authorities to fulfil their additional duties under this section 4.'.
The Warnock recommendations, as included in this part of the Bill, will place an extra financial onus on local education authorities. Therefore, the Minister ought to provide more money to the LEAs so that they can adequately fulfil these extra obligations, which are so essential and which will be of great help to many handicapped children and young people.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The clause does not create additional or more onerous duties for education authorities. It replaces the existing duties with new ones, more in tune with current thinking on provisions for special educational needs following the publication of the Warnock report.
Many desirable improvements can be made to the whole spectrum of educational provision. The Government are anxious to improve the quality of Scottish education. Such improvements are not what the Bill is all about. Clause 4 creates a new framework for the future development of provision for special educational needs and thus clears the way for progress as resources permit.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 5

ASSISTED PLACES AT GRANT-AIDED AND INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

Mr. Millan: I beg to move amendment No. 61, in line 21, leave out clause 5.
This is the clause that deals with the assisted places scheme. I want to put two things on record at this moment, to use that hackneyed cliché phrase. First, we are utterly opposed to the assisted places scheme. I shall not repeat that the next Labour Government will abolish the scheme. All those who enter into the scheme should understand that it will have a limited duration.
Whereas we dealt with grant-aided schools generously in retrospect by giving them considerable notice that we intended to abandon the grant-aid to these schools over a period of five years, I do not think that a future Labour Government will be able to deal with the assisted places scheme in that same generous way. Therefore, the scheme has a limited life. It is opposed not only by us but by every facet of educational opinion in Scotland. It is contrary to Scottish educational tradition and it has no place in our Scottish educational system.
My second point is that if it had not been for a sensible change of mind by the Government on another matter we should still be discussing this at considerable length. I am glad to put it on record that the Government have decided to abandon the objectionable proposal announced by the Under-Secretary earlier in our proceedings that in another place the Government would introduce a provision that would have the effect of repealing section 88 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which gives protection from dismissal for teachers. There was an unsatisfactory debate about that, and at the end of the debate the Minister announced that the Government would introduce a provision in the other place.
For various reasons the Government have seen sense since then. They have said that they will not do that, which


saves me the necessity of making a speech about that and also enables me to do no more than to reiterate what I have already said on the assisted places scheme, without elaborating, as I should dearly love to do, the reasons why we find the scheme so objectionable.

Mr. R. McTaggart: I particularly welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. Although I did not serve on the Standing Committee, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) I am aware that the assisted places scheme has aroused strong opposition throughout Scotland.
The clause illustrates only too clearly the Government's double standards in education. Money spent for the majority of pupils in Scotland is being slashed while public money is being poured into the private sector. Professor Nigel Grant, of Glasgow university, wrote in The Scotsman of 5 October 1980:
The present Administration seems to see education purely in terms of personal advantage, hence the appalling plan to cream off the brightest pupils into fee-paying schools (at public expense) and reduce the rest to the role of educational soup-kitchens.
Professor Grant is very experienced in his field. The clause says that the scheme is being introduced
For the purpose of enabling pupils who might otherwise not be able to do so to benefit from education at grant-aided and independent schools",
but the lie has been exposed. In a written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) on 15 December last year, reported at column 70 of Hansard, the Minister told him that parents whose children currently attended fee-paying schools would be able to apply for an assisted place. That is a disgraceful abuse of the scheme and it makes nonsense of the Government's claim that it exists for parents who cannot afford to send their children to these schools.
All Conservative Members will probably have constituents who they will claim are making immense sacrifices for their children's education. If that is so, the Government's best course is to support regional authorities such as Lothian region, which, despite Government pressure, are still determined to try to provide services for children in need and to provide a good education for them. The people who are really making sacrifices for their children are those parents who send their children to a comprehensive school. As a direct result of Government policies they have to meet the rising cost of school uniforms, shoes, school meals, and so on.
The Bill is irrelevant to the real problems in Scottish education. One has only to visit any school to see the antagonism and hostility of the pupils towards the education system. Yet at a time when we need to make education more socially relevant, when we are on the threshold of the microchip era, and when schools need facilities to train our children and teach them the techniques of the future, the sinking morale of teachers and the withdrawal of cash from authorities has had an adverse effect. Many of the issues have been bypassed. Unfortunately, the Government are obsessed with the numbers game, which means that as school rolls fall there must be a corresponding reduction in resources.
The Government's policies mean that we deny school leavers—our future, in fact—the relevant skills to enable them to build a stronger, more reliable industrial base in Scotland. Given that education is our future, industrial and

otherwise, and that we depend so much on it, I do not think that with a Bill such as this we have a very good future. Indeed, our future is bleak.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McTaggart) seems to know that the Government are introducing microcomputers into every secondary school in the country, which is a most important venture.
The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) commented on section 88. Our decision is another example of the reasonable attitude that the Government have adopted at all stages of consideration of the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman also commented on the assisted places scheme. That is just another example of Conservative help for low-income families, which is denied by the Labour Party. We persist in this, with the assisted places scheme and the sale of council houses, for the benefit of such families.

Mr. Canavan: The Minister is fond of telling us that the assisted places scheme is simply a transfer of money that is already going to the grant-aided schools over a five-year period, which means a transfer of about £3½ million over five years. Therefore, in the coming year there will be £700,000 for the scheme, and the grant-in-aid will gradually be phased out.
8.45 am
What happens if, one day, the Minister wants to spend even more public money on this useless, disgusting scheme? Will he have to ask the House for permission, or will he simply do it by ministerial edict? His reference to section 88 shows no sign at all of a reasonable attitude on his part. Otherwise my hon. Friends and I would not have had to stay here all night to wring this concession out of a rotten Government. This is a victory for the Labour Benches, ensuring that section 88 stays on the statute book unamended.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: It should be recorded that other hon. Members than those representing the Labour Party have been present all night and have contributed to this major victory. My only question is whether it will be the Minister or his PPS who resigns.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 6

CONSULTATION ON, AND CONSENT FOR, CHANGES IN CERTAIN EDUCATIONAL MATTERS

Mr. Millan: I beg to move amendment No. 67, in page 31, line 13, leave out clause 6.
In the circumstances, I wish only to make a brief comment on the clause. I wish, however, to reiterate that the whole clause is misconceived. The Government have behaved in a hypocritical way over school closures. They want school closures. They encourage local authorities to close schools. At the same time, they do not wish to take their proper share of responsibility for a situation produced not only by falling school rolls but by the Government's determination to cut education expenditure and by their treatment of local authorities through the rate support grant and in other ways.
The Government have got themselves into a considerable tangle in relation to denominational schools. On the one hand, an elaborate series of provisions provide


for closures, while on the other Roman Catholic schools, principally, are given certain powers and opportunities to appeal to the Secretary of State that will not be available to non-denominational schools. That is a potential source of considerable difficulty and bitterness between one section of the community and another. It is a misconceived approach.
A more sensible answer would be to leave school closures to require the approval of the Secretary of State. The provisions in regard to consultation with parents and other persons who may be involved would continue to work as they now work in practice. Even without legislative provision, consultation already takes place. The Government have been determined to press ahead with their proposals. We believe that the proposals are misconceived and that they will cause considerable difficulty when the distinction between denominational and non-denominational schools becomes apparent locally.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The Minister and I have been involved in considerable correspondence about school closures proposed in the city of Aberdeen by Grampian education authority. The Minister has also had correspondence direct with a group of parents opposed to the Grampian regional council's proposals. I do not intend to traverse all the argument about the closures. I seek clarification on the position regarding school closures at present before the Secretary of State for consent. Can the Government give an assurance that discussions with education authorities will not simply continue until after the Bill reaches the statute book, at which time the Minister will be able to say that his consent is no longer needed?
In other words, may we have an assurance that specific proposals to close schools, which are now before him, will still have to go through the present procedure? Will consent for closure be given or withdrawn on the basis of the existing statute? Will the Minister confirm and reiterate the promise that he gave me in correspondence to the effect that he will see me and a deputation from the parents' organisations to discuss the proposed closures before he consents to any closure?

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: On both the hon. Gentleman's points, until the Bill is enacted the present procedures will apply. Neither the Scottish Office nor I will filibuster or create artificial delays to prevent the carrying out of normal procedures. However, when the Bill is enacted the new procedures will come into being. Some cases may fall on the margin. At present I cannot say when the Bill will be enacted. That is the best answer that I can give the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hughes: I accept in good faith the Minister's assurance that there will not be any artificial delays. Will he confirm that he will press education authorities to submit the information as soon as possible, so that there is no incentive for a recalcitrant education authority to delay until the Bill has been enacted?

Mr. Fletcher: I shall do that. Government policy is to leave the final decision on closures as much as possible to the local authorities. They are responsible for initiating school closures. There are two exceptions that particularly

affect rural schools. Where the distance between a school that is closed and the receiving schools is above a certain limit—which will be prescribed in regulations—the matter will automatically be referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Secondly, an exception will be made in relation to denominational education.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House or anyone else. Roman Catholic parents will not have rights that are not available to the parents of children who attend non-denominational schools. The Bill's provisions apply to the Roman Catholic hierarchy and to the hierarchy of any religious order. They will not protest against a specific closure but they will have the right to protest to my right hon. Friend if they believe, or think that they have reason to believe, that a local authority is using the school closure procedures to abolish denominational education altogether in the area. It is a safeguard provision, but it does not put Roman Catholic parents in a different or advantageous position compared with those whose children go to non-denominational schools.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No. 68, in page 31, line 13, leave out '30' and insert '22' .

No. 69, in page 31, line 14, at end insert—

'Consultation on, and consent for, changes in certain educational matters'

No. 70, in page 31, line 15, leave out '30A' and insert '22A'.

No. 71, in page 31, line 29, leave out '30B' and insert '22B'.

No. 73, in page 31, line 38, leave out '30C' and insert '22C'.

No. 74, in page 33, line 5, leave out '30D' and insert '22D'.—[Mr. Alexander Fletcher.]

Clause 7

REMOVAL OF CERTAIN CONTROLS IN CONNECTION WITH

DENOMINATIONAL SCHOOLS

Amendments made: No. 75, in page 35, line 20, leave out
'30A, 30B, 30C and 30D'

and insert
'22A, 22B, 22C and 22D'.

No. 76, in page 35, line 29, leave out '30A, 30B, 30C and 30D' and insert '22A, 22B, 22C and 22D.'—[Mr. Alexander Fletcher.]

Clause 14

REMUNERATION OF TEACHING STAFF.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I beg to move amendment No. 82, in page 42, line 17, leave out '(ii)'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it may be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 83, 85 and 86.

Mr. Fletcher: When the Bill was in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) pointed out that under new sections 92 and 95, as drafted, an associaton or group of associations commanding a majority on the teachers' side of a negotiating committee might be able to alter the balance of representation to their own advantage. The purpose of these amendments is to rectify that.

Mr. Millan: Unlike some of the other amendments, this is not a drafting amendment. It is of considerable consequence and I think that it deals with a point that I raised in my Second Reading, speech. This certainly represents an improvement and avoids what could have been an injustice to the smaller teacher associations.

Mr. Maxton: I want to place on record the fact that I cannot agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). I do not believe that the amendment is an improvement to the Bill. I believe that it should be left to trades unions and teacher organisations to take these decisions, without the Secretary of State having this type of power.

Amendment agreed to.

Further amendments made: No. 83, in page 42, line 32 leave out from beginning to 'above' in line 34 and insert 'subsection (3)(a)'.

No. 85, in page 45, line 28 leave out '(ii)'.

No. 86, in page 45, line 43 leave out from beginning to 'above' in line 1 on page 46 and insert 'subsection (3) (a)'.—[Mr. Alexander Fletcher.]

Clause 17

TRANSFER TO UNIVERSITY COURTS OF CERTAIN UNIVERSITIES OF POWER TO APPOINT PRINCIPALS

Mr. Foulkes: I beg to move amendment No. 88, in page 51, line 4, after 'Universities', insert
'and the power of appointing the Principal of Edinburgh University shall be transferred from the Curators of Patronage to the University Court'.
I was surprised that the court of Edinburgh university did not accept this amendment, which the Government said they would put to it. My old friend Lord Cameron, who is also chairman of the Curators of Patronage and a member of the court, no doubt frightened all the other members into submission. On a matter such as this I think that they are frightened that he will give them life imprisonment if they disagree with him.
I was not surprised that the district council did not agree, because it desperately clings to its past glories. It is inappropriate for the district council representatives to play this part in appointing a senior officer of the university when all the other senior officers are appointed by the university court, which is representative of the interests of staff, students and the wider community.
The argument that it is "the toon's college" and was formed by the "toon", unlike other universities—an argument put forward by Edinburgh university—is quite spurious, bearing in mind that it was formed 397 years ago when there was an independent Scotland with a separate king. Conditions are somewhat different today.
I hope that the Government will see the force of my argument. The Under-Secretary of State said in Committee that the Government agreed in principle with what I was suggesting and with the argument put forward by my hon. Friends and Tory Members. I warned him of the reception that he would get from the court and the district council. Because of that he has abandoned the principle. That is typical of the Government. I hope that the Minister will stick to the principle and accept the amendment.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The point is that, despite the eloquence of the hon. Member, the district council and the

university are happy with the present arrangement, which affects them both. If they are satisfied with it it is neither for the hon. Gentleman nor the Government to break up what is clearly a happy relationship.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 2

AMENDMENTS OF THE EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) ACT 1980

Amendments made: No. 90, in page 53, line 27, after second '(c)', insert
'the word "the" shall be omitted and'.

No. 91, in page 53, line 44, leave out
'children recorded as having special educational needs' and insert 'recorded children'.

No. 92, in page 54, line 11, leave out 'education' and insert 'educational'.

No. 93, in page 54, line 21, leave out 'attend school' and insert 'receive school education'.

No. 94, in page 54 line 39, after 'Act', insert', under a duty'.

No. 95, in page 54, line 46, leave out
children recorded as having special educational needs'
and insert 'recorded children'.—[Mr. Alexander Fletcher.]

Schedule 3

APPLICATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) ACT 1980 TO RECORDED CHILDREN AND RECORDED YOUNG PERSONS

Amendments made: No. 96, in page 55, line 8 leave out from beginning to 'shall' in line 9 and insert—
'1. Sections 28B and 28D of this Act and Schedule A1 to this Act'.

No. 97, in page 55, line 10, leave out
', 28F (except so far as applied by section 65(2))'
and insert 'and 28F(1) and (5) to (7)'.

No. 98, in page 55, leave out lines 41 to 47.

No. 99, in page 56, line 10, after second 'be' insert 'seriously'.

No. 100, in page 56, leave out lines 19–22.

No. 101, in page 56, line 40, leave out second 'a' and insert 'the'.

No. 102, in page 57, line 8, leave out from beginning to 'shall' in line 9 and insert—
'4.—(1) Sections 28A, 28B and 28D of this Act and Schedule A1 to this Act'.

No. 103, in page 57. line 12, leave out '(b)' and insert '(2)'.

No. 104, in page 57, line 15, leave out '(c)' and insert '(3)'.

No. 105, in page 57, line 17, leave out '(c) Paragraph (b)' and insert '(3) Sub-paragraph (2)'.

No. 106, in page 57, line 21, leave out
'(except so far as applied by section 65(2))'
and insert '(1) and (5) to (7)'.—[Mr. Alexander Fletcher.]

Schedule 5

REMUNERATION OF TEACHING STAFF: THE COMMITTEE

Amendment proposed: No. 110, in page 59, leave out lines 14 to 19.—[Mr. Alexander Fletcher.]

9 am

Mr. Millan: This is a significant amendment. It is not a drafting amendment. Frankly, I do not understand it. It


appears to be taking decisions outwith the procedure of what is at present the Scottish teachers' salaries committee. At present decisions in those committees are taken by a majority vote, but they require a majority of both sides. For obvious reasons, a majority on the teachers' side could affect the settlement if a majority of the management were against it, just because more teachers were present at the meeting, and vice versa. A majority has always meant a majority of members of both sides of the committee. That provision is being removed. I do not know why that is happening. Perhaps the Minister will explain.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: This matter was raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay). The right hon. Gentleman has correctly outlined the position. Now, rather than attempting to define the particular circumstances in which a majority of each side is not required, it is preferable simply to remove paragraph 3 from the schedule. The amendment would leave it to a committee or a sub-committee to prescribe its own voting procedures and standing orders made under paragraph 1(c) (ii) of the schedule.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 8

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Amendment made: No. 112, in page 71, leave out lines 36 to 40.—[Mr. Alexander Fletcher.]

Bill to be read the Third time this day.

Health and Safety (Medical Examinations)

Mr. Barry Jones: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Health and Safety (Fees for Medical Examinations) Regulations 1981 (S.I., 1981, No. 334), dated 5 March 1981, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13 March, be revoked.
The two main functions of the Employment Medical Advisory Service are helping to prevent ill-health caused by work and advising people with health problems about the type of work that suits them, or that they should avoid on health grounds.
The proposed regulations introduce a change in the structure of charges and increase the fees to cover the estimated full economic cost to the Health and Safety Executive of conducting these examinations. I estimate that each year about 90,000 examinations take place by appointed doctors, and a further 20,000 by the Health and Safety Executive's employment medical advisers.
However, all is not well, and we object to the proposals. These fees should not be increased as a charge on employers. The charges, as increased, could discourage employers from using the service, and could provide an excuse for irresponsible employers to evade using the service, to the considerable detriment of their employees.
There is an alternative case, namely, that the Government should retain the charge to employers at existing levels and subsidise the remaining cost so as to maintain this excellent service at its highest level.
The proposals imply higher costs for industry at a time when redundancies and the recession are getting worse. As the national officer of a leading trade union in heavy industry said to me,
the proposals may also lead to demands from employers for a reduction in examinations, with a subsequent increase in risks to workers.
The TUC's experienced secretary for social insurance and industrial welfare has expressed a similar view.
The stakes are high. We must never forget that many workers are engaged in dangerous, unpleasant and demanding occupations. They run the risk of either death or disease. There must be a consequential worry and tension among their relatives and dependants. The following statistics may be of interest to the House. In 1978 there were eight cases of aniline poisoning, one case of anthrax, five cases of carbon bisulphide poisoning, 64 cases of chrome ulceration, 23 cases of lead poisoning, three cases of mercurial poisoning and one case of phosphate poisoning.
In addition, the regulations have a direct relevance to skin cancer caused by pitch, tar and oil. They relate indirectly, but importantly, to dermatitis, poisoning by pesticides and the many occupational dust diseases. In 1978 there were reported gassing incidents of 43 by chlorine, four by hydrogen cyanide, 11 by nitrous fumes and 29 by sulphur dioxide. I name but a few.
The Opposition must probe and criticise the Government's proposal. The Government permitted a 540 per cent. increase in fees as recently as 1979. They are now proposing to increase fees by 247 per cent. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) is chairman of the important Joint Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. The Committee's report is critical of the


decision to raise the fees. It fears that there will be an erosion of the Employment Medical Advisory Service. It emphasises that a discretionary power in delegated legislation—namely, the power to raise fees—is being used to erode an absolute requirement of primary legislation that the EMAS should prevent ill-health at work.
The report is disturbing. By publishing it the Committee has done a service to the House. I want to quote briefly from the minutes when the Committee was examining witnesses. One witness said that:
it must be borne in mind that the instruction came from the Government … to increase fees.
Another said:
I suppose it is possible, if more and more employers use appointed doctors, we (EMAS) would be left to undertake examinations at smaller and more remote plants which could possibly lead to a higher level of fees.
I express the fear that if the appointed doctor system continues to grow the EMAS examinations will become even more costly, and ultimately may be eliminated. It is right to fear the erosion of the EMAS. It is a possibility. Clearly, we want assurances about that from the Minister. If my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, he may wish to refer to the Committee's report.
How many appointed doctors are there? How many doctors are there in the EMAS? What is the estimate of the average salary of the appointed doctors who, I presume, are either company or works doctors? Why does the Minister propose a 247 per cent. increase in fees when it is said that fees charged by the EMAS covered only 50 per cent. of the costs?
The Minister consulted widely via the Health and Safety Executive's consultative document. It would be interesting if he were to release the submissions of the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing. Did the BMA dictate the increase in fees? Is this the price for a readiness by doctors to deal with the increase in private examinations? Has the Minister any idea of the total sum involved in terms of fees charged by appointed doctors? Will he confirm that nine out of 10 employers choose the appointed doctor and that the work carried out by the doctors is on not a contractual basis but a statutory basis?
It would help the House if the Minister were to tell us what, in his estimation, leads companies to go for the appointed doctor system by the factor of 9 to 2. Trade officials are frequently unhappy with the appointed doctor. We fear that the Employment Medical Advisory Service will be whittled away. We know that trade union officials prefer the presence of the EMAS doctors. Shop floor workers are uneasy when the doctors who examine them are paid by employers. Managerial wishes might just take precedence in borderline cases, in the knowledge that the appointed doctor is paid by the employer on a contractual basis.
We seek reassurance from the Minister. This is an issue of express concern and we ask for assurances. How stringently controlled is the EMA certification of competence given to an appointed doctor? How thorough and how frequent are the assessments made of the doctors? Do they receive training and guidance so that they may give the best possible protection to employees in many dangerous occupations?
The Health and Safety Executive does magnificent work. The EMAS carries grave responsibility, and it does

so well. It performs magnificently. However, we know that the executive is labelled by the Government as a quango. We know that the Government do not like quangos. Monetarism implies fierce expenditure cuts. The EMAS must face such cuts. That is why it is being forced to balance its books by increasing its fees. The monetarist Administration, aided by the Rayner exercise, are seeking to reduce the number of civil servants. That is why to some degree we think that the statutory instrument is paving the way for an expanded private appointed doctor system. Government policy is to enforce manpower reductions in the Health and Safety Executive, and clearly the advisory service is not immune from that exercise. Thus, the EMAS is less likely to cope with the increasing demands upon its services and for the retention of its high quality of service.
It is deplorable that the EMAS will undertake fewer routine examinations of workers at risk. Something had to give in this sector under the current monetarist regime. The public sector is being cut. This could well be a cynical story. First, insist on manpower cuts and expenditure cuts. Note the possibility of a decline in the quality of service. Switch the accent, after raising fees, to the private appointed doctor system. Call this privatisation. It points to the erosion of a fine service. This is how the public sector can be cut. Cynical observers would say that the statutory instrument is promulgated as a result of Government manpower cuts in Whitehall and upon its quangos.
Those who believe that the Government are not behaving cynically should consider another famous quango—the Manpower Services Commission. Currently engaged in helping the unemployed, it is already to suffer a cut of 1,700 staff and £80 million in its budget. The industrial training boards are under threat and are to lose £50 million annual funding.
This morning we are debating a classic compendium of expenditure cuts, manpower cuts and the urge to track down quangos, whilst opening up the way towards privatisation of a prize medical advisory service. The Opposition genuinely fear the erosion of the EMAS.
We say that there is another way open, even to the Government, notwithstanding their current monetarist dogma, namely, to let the Government retain the charges to employers at existing levels and subsidise the remaining costs. By so doing they can step back from the disgraceful tactic of using a discretionary power in delegated legislation to erode an absolute requirement of primary legislation.
Our working-class men and women, who often work in the most demoralising and frequently dangerous conditions, will not benefit under the measure proposed by the Government. Parliament should protect workers from health hazards by opposing the measure.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has drawn the special attention of the House to the instrument in question—the Health and Safety (Fees for Medical Examinations) Regulations—on a number of bases.
I shall divide my comments into two. I shall refer first to the comments raised in Committee. In the report that the Committee presented to the House it made it clear that it felt


that the discretionary power in delegated legislation is thus being used to erode an absolute requirement of primary legislation.
The House set up the Joint Select Committee on Statutory Instruments in order to scrutinise delegated legislation and to make sure that such abuse of power is not taking place. The Committee was set up in the 1940s, when it was discovered that by breach of subordinate legislation the National Fire Service had been operating illegally. It was established to draw the attention of the House to various abuses, ambiguities, and so on. It seemed to the Committee that that was an area where an unusual use of powers was being made.
Section 55 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 places an absolute duty on the Minister to maintain an Employment Medical Advisory Service. Subsection (1) says:
There shall continue to be an employment medical advisory service, which shall be maintained for the following purposes".
After that there is a list of purposes. The Act does not say that the Minister "may" maintain a service, that he shall "use his best endeavours" to maintain a service, or "use all practical means to do so", but absolutely that he "shall" maintain a service. The purpose of the service is then outlined. The Act says that it is so that
the Secretary of State, the Health and Safety Commission, the Manpower Services Commission and others concerned with the health of employed persons seeking or training for employment can be kept informed of, and adequately advised on, matters of which they ought respectively to take cognisance concerning the safeguarding and improvement of the health of those persons".
It is difficult for an advisory service adequately to advise the Secretary of State and the various bodies on the safeguarding and improvement of people's health if it does not examine people. It can obtain reports from appointed doctors secondhand, as representatives of the Department of Employment claimed in evidence to the Committee, but the legislation lays it down that such an advisory service shall be maintained so that the advice is based on practical, direct experience.
On fees, section 57 of the Act states:
The Secretary of State may by regulation provide for such fees as may be fixed by or determined under the regulations to be payable for or in connection with the performance by the authority responsible for maintaining the employment medical advisory service".
In other words, the payment of fees is discretionary. It is not an absolute duty. It seemed to the Committee unusual that the Minister should make swingeing increases in fees. The fees had not been changed since 1971, so there was a catching-up exercise, involving an increase of about 540 per cent., which came into force at the beginning of 1980. The increase is now about 247 per cent., making a total of 787 per cent., which should be sufficient to catch up with inflation and a good deal more to boot.
A member of the Committee said that the fees were being increased by an enormous amount, which could lead to a reduction in the use of the EMAS, with employers going to private doctors. In answer to a question, a representative of the Department stated:
I suppose it is possible if more and more employers use appointed doctors we would be left to undertake examinations at smaller more remote plants, which could possibly lead to a higher level of fees.
That is an admission that the instrument could lead to a further increase in fees because of a diminishing use of doctors employed by the advisory service.
Is it a matter of policy, or is it chance? Representatives of the service are quoted in "Safety" as wanting to move work from the service to private doctors. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments. If that is the case, the Department is using an apparently innocuous instrument to increase the fees and carry out a policy not permitted under the primary legislation.
The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act allows the Minister to do a wide range of things, far wider than I regard as reasonable. Although I was on the Committee that considered that legislation, it was my first Committee, and in my view the Minister got away with a good deal more than he should have done. Nevertheless, it does not allow him to erode the provision of the EMAS.
It is clear to me that the director of the Health and Safety Executive, Mr. John Locke, who delivered a lecture on 15 May 1981 to officers of the Institute of Occupational Health, takes a fairly cynical view of the way in which both Ministers and Parliament can be manipulated. Certainly, a cynical attitude comes across in that lecture. It would indeed be a cynical misuse of powers if the Minister were using an increase in fees in order to carry out a policy decision.
The Minister must answer the point that his own employee made in evidence to the Committee. How can he reconcile the absolute duty laid down in the primary legislation with the view taken by his employee that the increase in fees may well lead, or could possibly lead, to a higher level fees through a diminution in the use of the service?
This is repeated again on page 8 of the evidence:
It is possible, as you say, that some restructuring might result in more and more employers not using the Service",
to the point at which it becomes patently incompatible with Government expenditure. I therefore believe that there is a very strong case for the Government to answer, namely, that this is a very unusual use of powers, because they are implementing policy in an area in which they are not allowed to do so, by way of a discretionary power that is, in effect, eroding an absolute duty.
Under the 1974 Act the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive must have their accounts examined by the Comptroller and Auditor General. It could be argued that if the level of fees were so low that the cost of maintaining the EMAS were extraordinarily high the Comptroller and Auditor General would have drawn the attention of the House to the matter.
In the last published accounts that I could obtain from the Library, however—the accounts for 1979–80—the Comptroller and Auditor General, Douglas Henley, does not draw the accounts to the attention of anybody. He says:
I certify that in my opinion the Income and Expenditure, Accounts, Balance Sheet and supporting information give, under the accounting convention stated above, a true and fair view of the transactions of the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive for the year ended on 31 March 1980 and of the state of affairs at that date. I have no observations to make upon them.
If the Comptroller and Auditor General had no observations to make upon those accounts, I assume that the level of fees was such that no extraordinary deficits were incurred that he felt should be drawn to somebody's attention. Therefore, yet again, there is the decision that it is a matter of policy that the EMAS should be phased out. That is against the statutory obligations laid upon the Minister.
The second part of my comments concerns the functions of the EMAS and the important role that it plays. I have no doubt that many employees hold it in high regard, because they recognise it as a form of independent assessor in cases where there may be a conflict of opinion about adverse medical conditions arising as a result of a person's occupation or employment.
There is suspicion where a doctor is employed to carry out medical examinations on behalf of an employer and to report to that employer. The Minister may well argue that doctors give purely medical advice. All I can say is that in the reality of the factory workshop, many employees feel that if a doctor is employed the balance will be tilted in favour of the paymaster, to the detriment of absolute medical impartiality. That view is held by many people with whom I have spoken.
The retention of the Employment Medical Advisory Service is important for that reason. If such suspicion exists, the EMAS can be available for use by the employer and employee, thereby generating a feeling of confidence.
There is a conflict of interest between the employer and employee in the operation and enforcement of many of the regulations. The regulations exist not because employers carry out their duties with zeal—be it in respect of the ionising radiation regulations, the chroming regulations and all the other regulations that require medical examinations of one sort or another—but because in the past they have not carried out their duties and obligations with necessary zeal.
The reason for legislation is that people in the workplace have suffered from adverse medical circumstances arising from the product or process with which they are associated. In order to ensure that the regulations were carried out to the full, the EMAS was established to give an impartial assessment. It would be a retrograde step if we eroded the duties of the EMAS in the way suggested.
The Minister has a serious case to answer. I believe that the proposed increase in fees is unnecessary. It represents an application of policy rather than the use of a discretion to cover costs. The Minister must answer the basic point, namely, how he squares this massive increase in fees with the statutory, absolute obligation that the Secretary of State shall maintain an Employment Medical Advisory Service, because the evidence from his own employees is that the proposed increase in fees will probably lead to a diminution in the use of the EMAS.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Waddington): I should like briefly to give the background to this subject. As the House knows, the law requires employers in certain industries where there are potential health hazards to arrange periodic medical examinations of their workers. As has become clear, those examinations can be—and have been for a considerable time—carried out either by local doctors appointed by the Health and Safety Executive or by employment medical advisers of the HSE.
Nine out of 10 examinations—90,000 out of the 100,000 examinations in all—are carried out by appointed doctors, that is, by doctors other than employment medical advisers. Their fees are, therefore, arranged by agreement between themselves and the employer.
In fact, many appointed doctors are salaried employees of the companies concerned. It is highly desirable that there should be an increase in such company doctors,

rather than the reverse. I do not subscribe to the view advanced by the hon. Member for Keighley, (Mr. Cryer), that there is something disadvantageous in there being appointed doctors and doctors employed by companies. There is a clear advantage, in that one man has a fine opportunity to become a real expert in the risks involved in the work activities in that business.
Only one out of 10 examinations is carried out by the EMAS. Therefore, in only one out of 10 cases does the statutory fee arise. The regulations provide for increases in the statutory fees. It is correct that I put on record the reasons for the size of the increases.
As has already been said by the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones), no change in the charges was made between the coming into existence of the EMAS in 1973 and January 1980. The 1973 charges were already two years out of date, because they were based on fees fixed in 1971 by Department of Employment medical advisers, who were the predecessors of the employment medical advisers.
As hon. Members will readily appreciate, proposals for increases were made from time to time between 1973 and 1979. It must be an open secret that various policy matters intervened. The Government had to cope with incomes policy, and so on. Consequently, fees were not increased to cover costs during those years, although it is on record that it was the policy of the HSE and the Treasury that they should be done.
As a result of increases this year and last year, fees have been increased to cover the full cost to the HSE. Expressed in percentages, the increase provided for in the 1979 regulations and the present increase are formidable—540 per cent. in 1979 and 247 per cent. in the regulations. But the increases have been made on a derisory figure. I am told that according to a majority of the people and bodies consulted during the consultative process leading to the publication of the regulations, the new charges approximate to those that might be charged by a private doctor carrying out an examination on somebody at premises other than his own. That is plain when one considers the sums involved.
In 1971 the charge for the most common examination, which is for exposure to lead, was £1.05 for the first person examined and 35p for each additional worker. In 1980, it increased to £6·75 and £2·25 for each additional worker. I suggest that that is hardly an unreasonable fee. Under the new regulations in 1981 the charge goes up to £9·75 plus extra charges for laboratory tests and X-rays, because it was thought right to put the additional burden where the extra test had to be carried out rather than to impose a flat rate charge which would spread the additional costs over the whole field. Surely it is right to make an economic charge.

Mr. Terry Davis: Will the Minister refer to schedule 2? It is connected with regulation 3, which comes into effect in August. Will that increase the charge from £1·05 to £23·50?

Mr. Waddington: I think that the hon. Gentleman is correct. I have examined the process that the HSE went through to try to arrive at the true cost of X-rays, for instance. We are talking not about the charge for an X-ray plate but about the average charge for the total number of X-rays that have to be carried out on a particular person. I am told that that is the true economic cost.
There is no case for the taxpayer subsidising the employer. No reason was advanced by the hon. Member for Keighley when he said bluntly that the present charges were right and that it was wrong to increase them. He said an increase was unnecessary.
I do not understand how it can be argued that an increase is unnecessary when the present charges do not meet the cost of the service and the taxpayer is paying rather than the employer. There will be an annual review to determine whether an application for an increase should be made so that we do not fall behind in the ridiculous fashion that we fell behind between 1973 and 1980.

Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister accept that one of the reasons for a cheap medical service is to maintain the good health of workers, and that it is more likely to be used if it is cheap? Do not employers make a contribution through their taxes? Many Ministers have complained about that in the past.

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman's remarks are entirely misconceived. It is not a question of a service being more or less used because it is more or less expensive. The employers have a statutory obligation to ensure that the tests are carried out, whether they are cheap or expensive. If they do not, the factories inspector will close their works. There is no question of employers being able to escape their obligation. There is nothing in the argument that a different scale of charges would affect the number of examinations. The only valid point involves the extent to which higher charges might lead to more use of appointed doctors and less use of employment medical advisers.
Three worries have been expressed. It is said that there would be an excessive burden on employers at a difficult time, that that excessive burden would lead to a lower standard of occupational health care, and that a reduction in the use of the EMAS would be a mistake because one should not contemplate a diminution in its role.
If employers use the medical advisory service they will be asked to pay the true cost. They do not have to use the EMAS. If they do not like the charges, they can go to an appointed doctor.
I have already answered the point about the lowering of standards. Employers are obliged by law to arrange the examinations. They cannot stop having them. There is no reason to doubt the efficiency of appointed doctors if, because of the fees, employers decide to use them instead of the advisory service. The hon. Member for Keighley said that there is a suspicion that when an employed doctor carries out an examination he may not do his duty correctly and may not be truly independent and impartial because he is an employed doctor. Such a suspicion is wholly unwarranted. I am sure that the hon. Member for Keighley, when he hears those ridiculous suspicions voiced, says plainly to those who voice them that there is no justification for them. I fear, however, that this is not the role that he plays. The hon. Gentleman has been unable to quote a single case in which it has been found that an appointed doctor has not reported a matter that he should have reported.
I turn to the case advanced in the report of the Joint Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. The hon. Member for Keighley says that that is a case where there has been not only an unusual use of power but an abuse
of power. The hon. Gentleman says that it is a case where discretionary power in delegated legislation is being used to erode an absolute requirement of primary legislation. If it is parliamentary language, I am prompted to describe the hon. Gentleman's observation as poppycock. It is primary legislation that gives the absolute discretion to make charges by delegated legislation.
The hon. Gentleman argued that the fees could lead to a reduction in the number of those using the EMAS. As a result of the increased charges, more employers may opt to use appointed doctors rather than employment medical advisers. That is a different matter. The purpose of the regulations is not to bring about a transfer from employment medical advisers to appointed doctors. I have stated as clearly as I can that the purpose is merely to see that the true economic cost of an examination carried out by an employment medical adviser is borne by the person who is required by statute to see that the examination takes place.

Mr. Cryer: I must point out that if I use the words "an abuse of power" they represent my view and not those of the Joint Committee. The all-party committee also considered that this instrument was an unusual use of the powers. Will the Minister make it clear that if, as a result of the instrument, the advisory service is diminished, he will seek to maintain his absolute duty under the Act to reduce the fees should any threat to the service arise.

Mr. Waddington: I do not give that undertaking. It is not necessary for me to give such an undertaking. The hon. Gentleman, it seems, is under a misapprehension if he talks in terms of the only function of the EMAS being to visit factories and examine employees. I have looked into this matter. A tiny percentage of the total time of the employment medical advisory service is spent in carrying out this sort of examination. It has very many roles to perform and the House may well think that some of them are very much more important than the role of carrying out rather routine examinations of individual employees.
For instance, if there is a transfer by employers from the EMAS advisers to appointed doctors, the EMAS will have more time to devote to a consultancy service for employers and unions. It will have more time to devote to its work at MSC employment rehabilitation centres and at skillcentres. It will have more time to advise the careers service and Government Departments, and more time to carry out research into occupational health and to monitor hazards.
The truth of the matter is that very little time is now spent on these examinations by the EMAS. That has been true for a number of years and, therefore, it is difficult to see how there can be an unusual use of the powers of the Act in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Keighley, when what may happen, and all that may happen, is that the employment medical advisers will be free to deploy more of their time in research and advice and can spend less of their time carrying out routine examinations.
The statutory instrument has now been in force since 8 April, so the House is debating it a little late in the day as well as a little early in the day. I am informed that the experience of the EMAS since these higher charges were introduced has been that they have made no difference to relationships between the EMAS and employers, and that no representations concerning the impact of the charges have been received from anyone.
I shall deal with the specific points raised by the hon. Member for Flint, East. He asked me how many appointed doctors there were. The answer is 688. He also asked how many doctors there were in the EMAS. The answer is 83. I cannot tell him the average salary for appointed doctors, because the circumstances are so various. Some of them spend a very small proportion of their time performing the role of an appointed doctor and are in private practice. Others are company doctors carrying out multifarious functions.
I was asked what the BMA had to say about the matter. The point being made was that the BMA may have lobbied the Health and Safety Executive to put up the statutory fees so as to increase the remuneration of appointed doctors. In fact, my records tell me that the only observation made by the BMA on the matter was to the effect that it was pleased to note that the EMAS was now relaxing its opinions with regard to non-EMAS doctors being appointed to perform statutory examinations.
I was asked whether I knew why so many employers went to appointed doctors. I do not really know. All I can say is that very many of them went to appointed doctors long before these increases in fees. I can only say that they have a choice, and they have exercised that choice over the years.
I was asked how strictly controlled were the certificates of competence given to appointed doctors to make them so appointed. I am told that the employment medical adviser who interviews the doctor concerned examines his qualifications and then has to base his judgment on the interview and on those qualifications. I repeat, the examinations that are carried out by these doctors are perfectly routine, ordinary examinations, well within the competence of the ordinary medical practitioner. I therefore invite the House to reject this prayer.

Mr. Terry Davis: The Opposition believe that this matter involves health as well as the Department of Employment.
I should like to begin by picking up one of the Minister's points in case an unreasonable interpretation is placed on it. He said that we were discussing the regulations a little late in the day. He will know that the Opposition prayer was not taken in time, because the evidence available to the Joint Select Committee could not be published in time to have it before us when debating the regulations. Therefore, it was agreed through the usual channels that the Government would provide an opportunity for the Opposition to raise the matter when we had all the evidence before us. We did not want to base our opinions simply on prejudice. We wanted to see the facts and what the Minister's civil servants had said to the Joint Select Committee.
In his defence of the regulations, the Minister said that they may affect only the fees paid by an employer for the medical examination of an employee if the examination is done by a doctor employed by the Health and Safety Executive. Of course, that is correct. However, it is also correct—as the report of the Joint Select Committee and my hon. Friends have pointed out—that the regulations increase the fees for such medical examinations by the remarkable amount of 247 per cent.
As my hon. Friends have also pointed out, it is not the first time that the Government have increased those charges. For seven years, from early 1973 to the end of

1979, there was no increase in the fees. For seven years there was stability. For all the complaints about the burdens that the Labour Government allegedly placed on British industry nothing was done to increase those charges. Then the Conservative Party was elected to power. As soon as it came to office the Health and Safety Executive announced that there would be a massive 540 per cent. increase in the charges, effective from January 1980.
There has now been another 247 per cent. increase. It follows that the increase is cumulative much more than was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). If a charge is increased by 540 per cent. and the new charge is increased by 247 per cent., the total is an increase not of 787 per cent. but of more than 2,000 per cent. I intervened earlier and pointed out that it seemed that the increase would be from £1·05 when the Government took office to £23·50 in August this year. That increase supports my calculation. I hope that the Minister will intervene and correct my arithmetic if I have made a mistake.
As the charges are complicted, and as the Government have put them on to a new basis, perhaps the increase amounts—as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley suggested—to only 800 per cent. However, an increase of 800 per cent. is a big increase even by the Government's standards. Indeed, it is a big increase even by the standards of a Government who have increased prescription charges by 400 per cent. This increase in the fees must be far in excess of any increase in costs. It is so much higher than the general level of inflation that the Opposition must be right to question its effect.
The Minister explained that the increase in fees represented the true cost. Perhaps he will tell us how those costs were calculated. Are the costs simply based on the salaries of doctors employed by the Employment Medical Advisory Service, or is there an element of fixed costs? If so, what does that element of fixed costs consist of? How are the calculations made? The Minister said that the Health and Safety Executive consulted the British Medical Association. If the fees are based on costs, why was it necessary to consult the BMA? I could understand the Government consulting a firm of cost accountants, but I do not understand why they should consult the BMA to establish the true cost of the EMAS.
There is a slight discrepancy between the Minister's description of that consultation and the views expressed by the BMA, and the evidence given by one of his civil servants to the Joint Select Committee. According to the evidence, the BMA had been consulted about the amount of the fee and not about whether it would welcome a relaxation of the Health and Safety Executive's view that more doctors should be employed by the EMAS and that examinations should be conducted by it. In effect, the representatives of the competition to EMAS were consulted to establish what the new fees should be.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley dwelt on the constitutional point. I understand the Minister's defence, but it is nevertheless true that a statutory obligation is put on the Government to provide the Employment Medical Advisory Service. The Opposition are not completely reassured. We suspect, as the Joint Select Committee said, that the Government are seeking to destroy the EMAS through the back door. That is a constitutional point.
The most important issue is the health of working people and the possible effects of these fees on those


people. The Government believe in financial incentives. The Minister failed to assure us this morning that the Government are not creating a financial incentive to unscrupulous employers to ignore their moral and legal obligations. If these fees are being increased by such a large percentage, surely there should also be an increase in the penalty that it imposed on a rogue employer. However, the Government are not proposing that, either now or in the future.
There is also the effect on industry and the economy as a whole. At a time when the recession bites ever deeper, when more and more people are losing their jobs, and when industry is finding it more and more difficult to compete with foreign manufacturers, surely it is madness for the Government to increase the costs of our own manufacturing industry. Yet that is what they have done with the fees for examinations done by the Employment Medical Advisory Service. The Government weep crocodile tears about increases in rates, largely engineered by the Government themselves, but then they increase the fees charged for medical examinations by as much as 800 per cent., or even 2,000 per cent.
There is also the effect of this increase on the work of the Health and Safety Executive—the effect on the Employment Medical Advisory Service. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley emphasised the importance of the EMAS. He also referred to its effectiveness. The Minister says that appointed doctors are often employed by the company, and he is right. Many factory doctors, as they are called, conduct these regular, routine but essential examinations on the factory premises. However, not all appointed doctors are company doctors. Many appointed doctors are local general practitioners. When the Minister says that he wants greater emphasis put on appointed doctors who are salaried employees of the company, is he suggesting that it should take place at the expense of the local GPs? I am sure that the medical profession would be interested to know that.
More important is the aspect of impartiality. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley is right when he says that there are often times when the employee and his trade union representatives ask for what they see as an independent opinion by a doctor who is not employed by the employer. Good employers do not resent that request. They see it as a way of maintaining the confidence of their employees in their own appointed doctor. Usually the second opinion by a doctor of the EMAS confirms the opinion that has been given by the company's appointed doctor. That is an important function of EMAS, and it is valued by good employers as well as by trade unions.
The Minister says that he wants an increase in those employed doctors who are full-time company doctors, because he says that it would give them greater experience, and that the doctor who works full time in a factory—it would have to be a large factory—would have more experience of the risks to which the employees are exposed. I suggest to the Minister that there is a contrary argument. It can be said that it is better to have experience of several companies so that one can compare the conditions of work and the risks to which people in that type of industry are exposed. The argument is not all on one side, as the Minister suggested when he said that it would be beneficial to employees if there were an increase

in the number of doctors who were employed only in a particular factory or company. There is the question of the width as well as the depth of experience.
As my hon. Friends said, the employer has two options. The Minister, too, emphasised that fact. The employer can use either the EMAS or an appointed doctor. If he decides to use an appointed doctor, it is done under a private arrangement between the employer and a doctor of his choice. The Minister failed to answer the question what would happen as a result of the increase in fees. Will more employers switch to appointed doctors? What will happen as a result of fewer examinations being undertaken by doctors of the EMAS? Will we see redundancies among them? If there are no redundancies, in spite of fewer examinations, what will be the cost of the service? If the cost remains the same because there are no redundancies and fewer examinations, and therefore fewer fees and lower revenues, what will happen? Presumably we may see an increase in the cost to the Treasury.
The Minster has not given an assurance that there will not be any redundancies among doctors of the EMAS. He rightly said that they have other responsibilities and work. The Opposition do not regard the routine examination as unimportant, but we accept that equally important work is undertaken by the EMAS. Is it the intention of the Health and Safety Executive that, if there are fewer examinations and more of the time of employed doctors is available, that time will be used by the EMAS for other work without reducing the number of doctors employed?
Finally, if there is a switch from medical examinations being carried out by doctors employed by the EMAS to examinations by appointed doctors, it will be one more example of what my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) called privatisation. Unlike the Government, the Opposition believe in a public Health Service, not a private Health Service.

Mr. Waddington: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I said that the debate was taking place a little late in the day I did not mean to convey to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) that I was in any way blaming the Opposition. I was paving the way for my following remark that no representations had been received since the regulations had been in force.
The £23.50 charge will be levied for examinations taking place as a result of the new Control of Lead at Work Regulations 1980. It is a new obligation and test. I do not deny that it is a substantial charge. I was asked why I consulted the BMA. I did not ask any organisation for its advice on that aspect. All the organisations were written to—for example, the Royal College of Nursing, as well as the BMA—and asked to make general observations. I quoted the specific observation made by the BMA in reply to that invitation.
In reply to the suggestion that the increased charges would provide an incentive to employers to avoid examination, I repeat that rigorous checks are carried out by the inspectorate. The most severe consequences would follow any failure to carry out that duty. It is not simply a question of fines being imposed—eventually HM Inspector could impose a closure order if an employer refused to fulfil his obligations under the Act.
I dealt earlier with impartiality. There is no evidence of there having been any lack of impartiality by appointed doctors. There is no reason why, in special circumstances,


an examination carried out by an appointed doctor should not be followed by another examination by a doctor of the EMAS.
I concede that there could be fewer examinations by EMAS doctors because of the increase in charges, but that is not the reason for the increase in charges. It could mean that if there are fewer medical examinations there could be other increases in fees. I am advised that that is less likely to be the cause of any increase in fees than the usual cause, namely, inflation.
Many factors must be taken into account in assessing the economic cost. One of the most substantial elements in the present charge is the travel that is involved. The employer's medical advisor often has to travel a considerable distance from the place where he is based to the factory. That is sometimes forgotten. There is no separate charge for the travelling costs, and the costs are averaged.
I have done my best to assist the House. I hope that the House will feel that in all the circumstances it is right to reject the prayer.

Question put and negatived.

Immigration Procedures (Work Permits)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Berry.]

Mr. Giles Radice: I am glad to welcome the Minister of State, Home Office to the debate, even if it is to take place at this rather unorthodox hour. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter that is of great importance to my union—the General and Municipal Workers Union—of which I am a sponsored Member, as is my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks). The issue is of importance not only to the General and Municipal Workers Union but to many others. It involves the wider issues of how we administer the immigration laws, how we treat immigrants in Britain, especially Filipinos, and, more especially, the general issue of the maintenance of civil rights and liberties at a difficult time in this country's history.
My interest in the issues that we shall be discussing was aroused by a number of cases relating to Filipino workers that I have raised with the Minister on behalf of my union, as has my right hon. Friend. Many issues arise on the treatment of Filipino workers, some of which were mentioned in an Adjournment debate last year by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Carmichael), especially those relating to the Claveria judgment.
I deal this morning with one issue in particular, namely, references. If my facts are wrong, I hope that the Minister will correct me. Since April 1979, approximately 200 migrant workers, mainly Filipinos, have been threatened with removal because they are alleged to have had false references when they applied for work permits a number of years ago.
The new drive on references by the Home Office is directed for the most part against hotel and catering workers, resident domestic and nursing auxiliaries who have been working in this country to the satisfaction of their employers for a number of years. That is a crucial point.
I hope that the Minister will also comment on another point. I understand that the immigration service is now putting a great deal of public resources and public money into investigating references. Whenever a Filipino who is in this country on a work permit applies to the Home Office, his or her references are investigated both in the United Kingdom and in the Philippines. No one knows where the authorities obtain their information. I should like to hear a little more about that from the Minister.
There have been alarming reports from the Philippines that the British embassy in Manila has been using Filipinos as investigators and informers against their fellow Filipinos in this country. I hope that the Minister will deny that. If he does, the question remains: where do the authorities obtain their information?
Two further questions arise out of that investigating process. What criteria do the authorities use when looking at references? What constitutes proof? In this country there is no proper process of appeal. The only way in which cases can be reviewed at all is through hon. Members bringing them to the notice of the Minister and asking him to review them. I acknowledge the courtesy


with which the Minister has treated a number of my approaches on behalf of members of my union and cases of hotel and catering workers that my union has brought to my attention.
A broad judgment about what has happened is that the tough-minded, almost fanatical approach of the authorities today contrasts markedly with the approach taken during the 1970s when most of those workers came into the country. That is a key point. Little or no effort was made at that time to check on references by the British embassy in Manila, or in Britain. I believe that the truth is that at that stage British employers were so eager to get the cheap and dependable Filipino workers into this country that the authorities were prepared to turn a blind eye, even if they might have suspected that some of the references were not all that they seemed to be. At that stage they provided no written information about the work permit regulations with which the Filipino workers had to comply.
This is an important point. We are seeing not the improvement of existing procedures affecting those coming into this country at the moment—there are not people coming in under those categories—but a retrospective zealousness that reveals much about the present British Government's attitude to migrant workers, which is grossly unfair to those workers.
Let me say a word about the role of the employment agencies. Everyone agrees that the agencies—particularly in the Philippines—responsible for recruiting workers were mainly to blame for false references. They made large profits from the traffic in migrant workers and thought nothing of providing false information. On 27 August the Minister wrote to The Sunday Times stating:
it is true that the agencies played a large part in providing false information.
Many of them were closed down by the Philippine Government. In the Somera case there is evidence that the agencies substituted false for genuine references to make more money. In most cases workers were ignorant of the nature of the references provided by the agencies or the work permit requirements. In some cases they were conned into paying for training courses that were useless in providing qualifications for work permits.
There is dispute about what happened in the past, but there is no doubt that many Filipino workers are paying for their sins, or the sins of others. Having come here to help the British economy and to support their families overseas, men and women who have worked for many years in unpopular jobs are being harassed and, in many cases, deported for breaching a minor regulation.
I suggest three changes substantially to improve the situation. I do not suggest a general amnesty, because I know that the Minister will turn it down flat, as he has on previous occasions. First, I ask for an overhaul of Home Office methods and procedures, including an end to the harassment of the Filipino community and the use of informers in the Philippines. Secondly, it would be a good thing if the Government introduced legislation to reverse the Zamir judgment, so that, where appropriate, blame is placed on the agencies and not on individuals. Thirdly, it is important to set up a proper appeal system, so that we can see the criteria and proof for removal. At present, we have to leave it to the Minister's discretion.
I fully accept that the Minister has been prepared courteously to review individual cases in response to

requests from hon. Members and the unions concerned, but I am surprised that he has been associated with such an illiberal and inhumane policy, which is alien to our best traditions. Is it because he is a prisoner of the Conservative Right, or, more charitably, to ward off further immigration legislation that he and his right hon. Friend have been concerned to show that it is possible through existing legislation to take tough action? The second, more charitable interpretation is the one that I would prefer to believe of the Minister.
I hope, however, that now that the Minister has had a night to reconsider his position, in the light of a new day he will tell the House that he has decided to turn over a new leaf and to adopt a more humane policy towards the Filipino migrant workers.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison): The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) has presented the case for not removing certain Filipinos who have been found to be illegal entrants. He spoke particularly about those who came with false work references, although he referred also to the Claveria type of case in which the people concerned came in on the basis that they did not have dependent children when in fact they did. I wish to try to pick up and to meet the points that the hon. Gentleman made. In doing so, I shall refer to both the work reference cases and the Claveria type of case.
I think that it would be as well if, before trying to deal with the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, I said a word about the issue of illegal entry in general. It was originally thought that illegal entry meant only clandestine entry of the sort practised by people who arrived, say, by rowing boat at dead of night on a remote stretch of beach. These were people who knew that they would never be able to satisfy an immigration officer that they should be admitted and therefore resorted to other ways of gaining entry.
However, a series of court judgments beginning in 1976 has extended the definition of illegal entry to include those who are examined on arrival by an immigration officer but who, because they cannot properly qualify for admission under the immigration rules, employ deception in order to gain entry. The courts have held that where entry is gained by material deception, the deception vitiates the original leave to enter and any subsequent permission to remain based on it.
Illegal entry can take many forms, but the two varieties in which Filipinos have been involved arise from the obtaining of work permits by deception.
First, there are the resident domestics, mostly women, who obtained their work permits by deception by falsely representing that they had no children. Because the Department of Employment would not have issued work permits had the existence of children been known, entry obtained on the basis of such a permit was illegal. This was confirmed by the Divisional Court in November 1979 in the case of Mrs. Claveria.
The second type of illegal entry relates to those who obtained work permits on the strength of false references. In a typical case, the work permit applicant presented forged or false references, for example, from a hotel or restaurant stating that he had worked for some years at that establishment when in fact he had not. Because the work permit would not have been issued if the truth had been known, these people, too, are illegal entrants. As such,


they are liable to removal. This kind of deception has for many years been treated as illegal entry and is, of course, by no means peculiar to Filipinos.
Removal is not automatic. Every case is fully reviewed and the person involved interviewed. Only then do we take a final decision, and where there are exceptional compassionate circumstances the person is allowed to remain.
The hon. Member was critical of the role played by employment agencies in the Philippines in the deception that was practised and I fully accept that in many cases they played a prominent part in obtaining the work permit or the reference and may well have encouraged people to be less than honest in their dealings with us. It has been claimed on behalf of many of the Claveria women that they were unaware of the rule which said that they could not have a work permit if they had dependent children.
From a strictly legal point of view, it does not matter who practised the deception. The courts have declared that entry obtained by deception is illegal even if the misrepresentation was effected without the person's knowledge. Despite that, I repeat that we have taken great care in examining cases to discover whether the applicants knew at the time that they were committing a deception. This is one of the crucial points that are covered in the interviews carried out by our officers with the groups of people with whom the House is concerned.
The references may well have been provided by employment agencies, but those who have been removed have admitted that they knew of the deception. This is a factor that I have tried to look at very carefully in the cases that have come before me—whether or not the people concerned really knew what they were doing. I accept that they may have been put under pressure by the employment agencies and may well have been given every encouragement to behave in a way that was out of line with the law, but we have always taken the closest interest in the question whether those concerned—Filipinos or anyone else—knew what they were doing.
The hon. Member has questioned whether the standard of proof that we require in establishing that a person is an illegal entrant is high enough. In virtually every case, illegal entry is indisputable. Once it is admitted that the reference is false, or that the domestic worker who claimed to have no children has children, there is no doubt that the entry obtained by that deception is illegal.
The argument is more usually on the extent to which the permit holder was personally responsible for, or sometimes even aware of, the deception. It is, of course, difficult to achieve absolute certainty about interviews which took place many years ago. We could have avoided a lot of difficult casework by standing on the simple legal position that all these people are illegal entrants whether or not they knew what was going on, and by not attempting to make exceptions in favour of those who were genuinely ignorant of all deception. I still believe that it is right in these cases to be more flexible, but this is a concession beyond the law.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned appeal rights. It is true that there is not a right of appeal in this country against illegal entry. There is a right of appeal from the country to which the person concerned would be returned but there is not a right of appeal, as things stand, in this country. The hon. Gentleman probably knows that just before Easter we issued a consultation document about the whole question of appeals. One of the specific points that we

made in it was that we see a good case in principle for considering the right of appeal in this country in illegal entry cases. There are practical problems about it, but we understand the point and we have invited comments in response to our document.
I was asked about informers. We do not cultivate informers and we do not expect Filipinos to inform on other members of their community. Nevertheless, we receive unsolicited information from time to time, some of it anonymous and some of it from Filipinos. But if we decide to follow up the information there is no question of our using Filipinos as investigators.
The ways in which cases come to light vary. Most of the Claveria type cases came to notice because the women applied for visas to bring to this country the children who had been declared not to exist when the work permit had been applied for. Sometimes there were substantial numbers of children. Sometimes, in both types of case, the Home Office, as I have said, receives letters suggesting that individuals are illegal entrants. Although we do not cultivate informers, we usually make inquiries if the information contains sufficient detail for an individual to be identified and traced. Sometimes investigation shows that the allegation was unfounded. If investigations lead to the identification of an illegal entrant, removal is effected only after careful investigation.
It would be quite wrong to give the impression that illegal entrants were all Filipinos or that only Filipinos were being removed. Of over 900 illegal entrants removed last year, fewer than 10 per cent. were Filipinos. I am not making moral judgments about these people. Most of them, as is widely agreed, are decent, hardworking people who are trying to make a better life for themselves and their families. If in order to escape from poverty they did not tell the whole truth, or told an untruth, that does not mean that they are necessarily unworthy people. There is no question of sending them back to the Philippines as a punishment or treating them as criminals.
The position is, however, that the admission of these people was gained by deception. Letting them stay is not consistent with a policy of strict control of immigration. The individuals affected who are sent home lose the opportunity of a Western European standard of living.
The main purpose of immigration control is to provide a barrier against people, mostly decent, hardworking people from poor countries, who do not qualify for admission but would like to escape from poverty by coming here. Comparing the position of these people with the position of others who made their applications from the Philippines honestly and openly, the difference is that the former have for several years been able to enjoy the Western European standard of living as a result of the deception and are free to take back with them to their families in their own country any savings which they have made, whereas the honest applicants were refused at the outset.
I am afraid that there is no way in which strict immigration control can avoid frustrating the aspirations of poor people for a better life in this country. Nor can one operate a policy of strict immigration control in principle while making exceptions in favour of any particular group which comes to notice if there would be hardship or poverty if they were not admitted or allowed to remain. Immigration control is not an abstract principle but the total of decisions taken in individual cases.
The Home Secretary does not take any pleasure—nor do I—in having to turn people away. We therefore try to carry out our duties by excercising discretion as broadly as is consistent with our overall responsibilities. Of the Claveria cases so far decided, we have accordingly been able to allow 166 to remain while only 94 have had to go.
Those figures show the approach that my right hon. Friend and I bring to individual cases. I am afraid that we do not have separate figures immediately available for the work reference cases to which the hon. Gentleman referred. One reason is that they are not confined to the Philippines. There have been frequent cases from other parts of the world as well, but we have not recorded them separately.
Where there are really compassionate grounds, or any other grounds, for allowing individuals to stay, we are happy to act accordingly. We shall continue to excercise our discretionary powers widely and with compassion.
There are serious objections to creating new offences by passing legislation which applies retrospectively, but that is not the position here. An illegal entrant may be a person who has already entered the country in breach of the laws, and in April 1973 the House of Lords ruled in Azam that the powers to obtain and remove illegal entrants were retrospective.
As far as the Claveria cases are concerned, we have not created any new offence but have received a decision from the courts confirming that certain forms of deception constitute illegal entry. It would be contrary to our commitment to strict control of immigration if people were encouraged to believe that no action would be taken to remove those who gained entry illegally by deception. On the sheer common sense of the matter, it is difficult to deny that deception itself is as much a reason for removal as evasion.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we would end the Zamir policy. I appeared before the Select Committee and discussed this at some length. On that occasion I made it clear that we would not apply the obiter words of Lord Wilberforce in the Zamir judgment in the widest possible way. I said that we were looking for people who could be expected to have known, or who could reasonably have been expected to have known, that they were indulging in some kind of deception.
That seems to be a reasonable interpretation of the law. It certainly disproves the argument that we are going out of our way to chase these people. I assure the hon. Gentleman that as far as the reference cases are concerned it is not our intention to search every nook and cranny to find the kind of people about whom he is understandably concerned.
I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's charge that harassment has taken place. I believe that that is quite unsubstantiated. I do not believe that there is a need for an overhaul of Home Office procedures. As I have said already, there is a case for a change in the appeals procedures, and we shall consider carefully the representations that are made. However, I refute the charge that we are indulging in harassment. I believe that the figures and the way in which we look at these cases individually, with the greatest care and attention, prove that my right hon. Friend and I have carefully taken the humane aspects into account. We always have a very difficult job of balancing the law and immigration policy, on the one hand, with individual requirements on the other. I do not suppose that every hon. Member will say that we necessarily have that right in all cases, but I hope that the House will understand that we have devoted enormous care and attenion to this matter. I believe that we have faced our responsibilities properly.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Eleven o'clock am.